The Young Turks - What's In The Pudding?

Episode Date: July 28, 2022

Americans continue to fill up their gas tanks across the southern border because Mexico is doing more than The United States to lower fuel prices. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez destroys gun manufacturers for “taking blood money'' at a tense hearing. Middle school student, Addison Gardner, speaks against the abortion ban, she asks, “What about my life?” A vote to advance a bill for military veterans who became ill after being exposed to burn pits did not pass on Wednesday.  Hosts: Ana Kasparian, Emma Vigeland *** The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews 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. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. Jink is still away, but that leaves some room for awesome guest co-hosts. And today we've got Emma Vigland, a good friend of TYT, former colleague. Still a good friend of mine, Emma, so good to have you. So good to be here, thanks for having me back.

Of course, anytime. I'm always amazed that you have the time to do it because I don't know if you guys know this. Most of you probably should already know. Emma's already done a full day of work over at the majority report. But she'll be with me and with us for the remainder of the program today. And I love that. Every time I see that you're going to be hosting with me, it like I kind of breathe the sigh of relief because I'm like Emma's got it. You know what I mean? Yeah. What she's talking about, she's got a lot of interesting things to say, and you always add a lot to the conversation. So I'm looking forward to covering these stories with you, which include something that actually broke before the show yesterday. But we didn't cover it because, you know, let me just say that we have the best producers in the world, okay?

My team in particular, I just, I love them. So story breaks, they send me the story and it's about, oh, Mansion and Schumer reached this incredible, groundbreaking deal. You know, it's not build back better, but it's close. Like, you know, just touting this legislation. And the producer who sent that story to me, Taylor, was like, I just don't trust anything Mansion says. And automatically, Taylor, who is pretty fresh out of college, is better than 99% of reporters in mainstream media. It's kind of incredible. So we're going to get to that story and why he was correct in being skeptical about it. Later, we'll talk about a hearing in the House. It was held by the House Oversight Committee in regard to the type of ads gun manufacturers

are putting out there. It appears that some of the symbols used in those ads appeal to, you know, some unsavory individuals like white supremacists. So we'll dive deep into that. And then later in the second hour, we will lighten things up quite a bit. But I want to kind of dedicate the bulk of this segment to this whole Mansion Schumer deal. What does it mean? What does the future entail when it comes to this legislation? Let's dig into it. The press has been applauding Senator Joe Manchin, a notorious obstructionist within his own Democratic Party, for allegedly reaching this groundbreaking social spending deal and climate change deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, apparently behind the scenes. While we've all thought

that the build back better agenda was dead, Mansion and Schumer have been hard at work, negotiating, figuring out a way to pass some version of it. And as you can imagine, when we're dealing with an individual who personally profits from the fossil fuel industry to the tune of literally millions of dollars a year, just 500 million, I'm sorry, 500,000 each year from coal alone, of course you're gonna get legislation that actually ends up giving tax giving tax subsidies and all sorts of handouts to individuals who have no interest in doing anything to combat climate change. In fact, they have every interest to exacerbate it as long as they're making a profit. So let's get to the details. What is the agreement that

they've reached? What is the likelihood that it'll pass in the Senate? Well, here's what we know so far. In a joint statement, Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin say that the inflation reduction act of 2022 will make a historic down payment on deficit reduction. All right, let's just stop already. I mean, I'm sorry, there are a lot more details to get to, but it starts off with deficit reduction, which is allegedly a priority of Republicans when Democrats are in charge, but never a priority for Republicans when Republicans are in charge. And I might get that wrong. I don't know, what do you think, Emma? Well, first of all, let's just say how I'm using it is that he now agrees to it when it's

the inflation reduction act, right? I said it on the show today, but it's like telling a kid that their broccoli is candy, right? It tastes just like candy. You can pass legislation, Joe Manchin. It's just, it's called inflation. It's there to combat inflation, and that's the only way he got on board. But yeah, of course. The whole deficit reduction angle was his way for to get the child tax credit, to get all of these other provisions struck down from the build back better legislation. And now it's just a shell of itself as as we expected. Right. And to be clear, this agreement between Schumer and Mansion, as far as we know, does not include the child tax credit, or at least making the child tax credit permanent.

Now the rest of their statement says as follows, invest in domestic energy production and manufacturing, that's an incredibly important part of their statement. We'll dive into that in just a minute and reduce carbon emissions by roughly 40% in eight years by 2030. The bill will finally allow Medicare to negotiate for prescription drugs, not all prescription drugs, some prescription drugs. Let's be clear about that and lower healthcare costs for millions of Americans. Additionally, we have reached an agreement with President Biden and Speaker Pelosi to pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation before the end of this fiscal year. And look, there's a reason why there was this mention,

this reference to energy production twice in the statement that I read you. It's because the priority here is to increase fossil fuel production within the United States. And the way that they sell it to the American people is to make them think that, listen, the The reason why we're really feeling it at the gas pump right now is because all of these lefty Green New Deal policies, which have never passed, have led to this incredibly expensive gas at the pump. And we just need to produce more energy because these leftists have destroyed our ability to produce enough energy within our borders. But the fact of the matter is the United States is the top energy producing country in the world. We're also the top exporter of fossil fuels in the world. And so you might be wondering, why is it that we're exporting fossil fuels when we desperately need supply here in the United States to keep prices low?

Well, it's because those fossil fuels are not owned by the American people. They're owned by multinational corporations who get to do whatever the hell they want with it, including selling it abroad to the highest bidder. So this idea of increasing energy production, which will come in the form of allowing or expanding energy production on public lands, just means that it's a huge handout to the fossil fuel industry. And there is no guarantee that those resources will benefit us in any way, shape, or form. I've got more details on that. But Emma, I wanted you to jump in. Yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right. It's also similar to what we saw with this chip. that just passed, which is notable, because that's a semiconductor industry bill that gives them billions of dollars to create jobs and manufacture semiconductors and chips here in the United

States. But as Bernie Sanders said, he was the lone Democrat in opposition to this bill. There's no guarantee that, not this bill, I should say, but to chips. There's no guarantee that those funds will come back to the taxpayer, even though taxpayers are subsidizing these new manufacturing, these new semiconductor chips and all those things. But it's similar with this legislation as well, when you give giveaways to the oil and gas companies and say, hey, domestic manufacturing, they're multinational corporations, let's be real here. They sell to the highest bidder.

They don't keep it within the United States. The only way to ensure that would be to nationalize our oil and gas companies, which is what we should be doing as a way to phase them out and save our planet. But that is the Joe Manchin's worst nightmare because that means, hey, no more profits for me and my buddies. Now I want to be clear and just say that right now, this is an agreement between Mansion and Schumer. It has not been voted on in the Senate yet.

I'm referring to this spending bill that they've agreed on. It's a little different from the chips bill, although there's now an issue with the chips bill, which I'll get to in just a moment. But let's give you some more details in regard to this agreed upon legislation by Mansion and Schumer. And I want you to remember that the initial build back better social spending bill was proposed to spend about $1.5 trillion. Okay, keep that figure in mind as I read more details to you about what it was whittled down to. The bill, the new bill, will include $739 billion in new revenue through a 15% corporate minimum tax, which, and I'm adding this part for myself, will be stripped out or stripped down by Kirsten Cinema because she has not weighed in yet. And I want to be clear that Kirsten Cinema has been the most vociferous against any type of wealth tax hike, corporate tax hikes in general.

She has been against it. She's been vocal about it. And she hasn't weighed in yet. idea that this is going to pass with some increase in taxes for corporations is laughable to me. And if I'm proven wrong, I will be elated to come on air and tell you that I'm proven wrong. But that's my prediction. Kirsten Cinema will be against the minimum 15% tax rate for corporations. They'll strip it out and this will be nothing more or the majority of this legislation will just focus on corporate handouts to the fossil fuel industry. Now it also includes prescription drug safety, savings and added IRS enforcement. It will limit the so called carried interest tax break.

The bill will also include $369 billion in spending on energy security and climate change and $64 billion in funding for the Affordable Care Act for a grand total of $433 billion in spending. So the $1.5 trillion billed back better agenda got whittled down to a potential corporate handout bill that will cost, $4333 billion, there will be more than $300 billion in deficit reduction, the one page summary released by Schumer and Mansion said. And you know, you have Biden touting this, even though it is unrecognizable from what he had initially put out. And you also have the media plotting this because it's bipartisanship, right? I mean, even though you, not that it's bipartisanship, that it's an agreement between Mansion, who in my mind, I really

see as more of a Republican, but he's still a Democrat. And Chuck Schumer here, they're hoping that it'll just pass through reconciliation, meaning that they would need just a simple majority in the Senate, the 50 Democrats to all vote in favor of it. And then you would have Kamala Harris be the tie-breaking vote. No Republican is going to vote for it. The media has celebrated this is like a really savvy move by Democrats because they managed to pass the Chips bill in the Senate with Republican support, meaning they didn't have to go through reconciliation. And they did that before this agreement between Manchin and Schumer were announced. So now you have Republicans who are very upset, they're very distraught, they feel like they've

been hoodwinked by these savvy and strategic Democrats. And now you have Republican lawmakers in the House saying that they will not vote in favor of the chips bill, which really doesn't matter because Democrats control the House. But you know, Emma, thoughts on the strategy, Do the Democrats in the Senate deserve credit for the way they went about this? Do you think there's any hope that there could be some, you know, good elements to this final legislation? It's a complicated answer, I think. Mostly no, right? I don't want to give this legislation credit as a complete shell of what was initially proposed. David Dayan pointed this out, but it's about a year to the day from when we found out that Mansion and Schumer had the secret backroom deal in the middle of build back better

negotiations, that Mansion was not going to go over that $1.5 trillion top line number. And yet Schumer let those negotiations play out. It was Kabuki Theater. And Bernie was like, let's do six trillion, then they agreed on 3.5. And then all along Mansion said, I'm not going to go over 1.5 trillion. They get it down to his number last summer in these negotiations. And he goes, sorry, still, still no. So he cannot be trusted here, of course. So there is a bit of sad poetry to the fact that that was basically almost a year ago to this day. I will give Schumer a rare bit of credit on this, on this strategy, because if he had signaled that there was going to be this agreement between him and Mansion and McConnell thought, didn't think that this was dead, which I mean, I think he was under the impression falsely, which is crazy that they actually duped Mitch McConnell. He would have clogged up the process. So the chips bill, which has been Schumer's pet project for many years at this point, would be, McConnell would put all the Republican opposition behind it, and they would have been

forced to go through the reconciliation process, which circumvents the filibuster, and then they would not have that ability, that route to go down with this bill, and that would have effectively killed everything. So the entire Biden agenda or whatever scraps there are left of it would have been dead. So the strategy, I actually do think was a good one. The only, I wish they would use smart strategies for things that aren't just competitiveness with China. Like, I mean, I think if you did a deep dive into Schumer's donors, I would imagine that there's an industry in New York that he's trying to benefit here. Like, there is something that is behind his passion about this particular bill.

Oh, no doubt, especially in, I mean, you briefly referred to the weaknesses in the chips bill. But yeah, I mean, that's not a bug. I would. I would argue that it's the feature. There's a reason why it's an incredibly weak bill in regard to actually benefiting ordinary Americans. But I wanted to just quickly juxtapose the conversation that we're having, which is a nuanced conversation full of contextual information to understand how we got to this place that we are today with this headline from the Atlantic. And it's in regard to the same legislation, the same agreement that we're talking about. An astonishing new bill from Senators Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer would put the US's climate goals back within reach. Would it, would it? So let's talk about that. Let's because I want to focus on that part of this

you know, legislation. So Bloomberg of all places actually published a pretty good piece on this titled Mansion Wins Big Nods to Oil in Deal ending logjam on climate. Oil, gas lease sales considered linchpin for mansion support. Green groups rage at measure. They say undercuts climate goals, and it does undercut climate goals. So the measures require the sale of drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. The bill would also make new renewable power projects on federal land and water contingent on future sales. Joe Biden campaigned on a pledge, by the way, to block new oil and gas drilling on public lands. And again, we're already the top oil and gas producing country in the world. And we export much of these resources across the globe.

And one person who works over at the Center for Biological Diversity, Brett Hartle says this. This is a climate suicide pact. The amount of leasing this bill mandates is absolutely massive. I don't think the climate offsets are enough to cover all the drilling that is going to happen. And I want to be clear about what this means. So they are going to, increase drilling leases on public lands. Those are lands that belong to us, the American people. And while those public lands will now be used by the fossil fuel industry to maximize their profits with absolutely no guarantees that are actually help lower energy costs for ordinary Americans. The consequences of this increased drilling will be socialized.

The acceleration of climate change is something that will all pay for, while the profits, that these companies will reap from these public lands will be privatized. That is how this system works. So anyone celebrating this is like a massive breakthrough for climate change is just lying to you. It's so silly, it's just juvenile really. And some of the stuff in there is like carbon capture is included in the legislation. And that is such a pet project of capitalists that want to continue drilling in perpetuity. So hey, you know, we'll do whatever we want.

We'll admit as whatever we can and we'll just capture it back. The technology is not as close as they claim and yet they still rely on this because it is a false solution to not actually stopping drilling, stopping fossil fuel usage. And of course this bill relies on that. The climate provisions in here are a joke and they claim that it'll get us down to 40% reduction by by 2030. 30, if I'm not mistaken. And I think anybody serious who is looking at this legislation, it makes it clear that that is not a viable outlook about what this is going to do, particularly because it's just about private sector incentives and tax credits. I know it's not a realistic solution to say we need to nationalize the oil industry within our current

political climate, but this is the kind of emergency that we're facing. These companies are ravaging our planet and without serious seizure of their assets and dismantling of companies that are making this planet uninhabitable for us, uninhabitable, I should say, then we're not really having a conversation about what we need to do about seriously tackling climate change. And this is not serious in the least, because Joe Manchin's at the head of it. Yeah, and that's the final thing that I'll touch on, because I think it's an important point to make when it comes to assessing whether or not proposed legislation or the outcome of these negotiations really will yield the kind of policy that Americans have been demanding.

It's not about whether or not these lawmakers are good guys or bad guys. It's not about whether or not they want to do the right thing in their hearts. Okay, it's all about whether the system that our government is functioning under incentivizes good legislation or bad legislation. And currently the system indicates that our elected lawmakers are so called public servants can be personally and financially invested in industries that they then benefit from financially, right? So when you have Joe Manchin making $500,000 a year from the coal industry alone, and I'm not talking about campaign donations, I'm talking about the money that he makes through his personal investment. investment in the coal industry, do you really think that conflict of interest is not going to play a role in the policy decisions he makes? So if you really want policy that speaks to the demands of the American people, you have to change the system. You have to do away with incentivizing

the bad behavior that we've seen for Mansion. And to be quite honest with you, I think when you reform a system like that, you probably wouldn't even attract the kind of self-interested egomaniacs that we have in Congress today. Because if you can't get rich off your position of power, why would you do it? I mean, I would argue that a lot of those lawmakers would make that argument, maybe not publicly, but certainly privately. So we want a system that's going to attract people who actually have an interest in being public servants. But that's not what we have right now. And that's why I just, I think anyone who's been paying attention can expect that this

legislation is going to be a disappointment. Yeah, I mean, last thing I'll say is Joe Banschen, with all of that context that you just provided, he chairs the Energy Committee in the Senate. He chairs it. He got it as a, you know, hey, if we give this to you, will you not obstruct the Biden agenda? Will you be a good soldier for the Democrats and look what it got them? No, you got to play hardball politics, twist his arm, do more because there's a lot of the skeletons in his closet when it comes to corruption.

And Merrick Garland could get busy investigating some of those things if Biden was actually serious about what he supposedly stands for, which we all know what the reality is. Exactly, exactly. All right, well, we gotta take a quick break. When we come back, we've got other news to get to, including this pretty incredible House Oversight Committee hearing on the gun manufacturers and the advertising that they put out there to attract pretty dangerous people to buy weapons. So we've got that and more coming right up. Stick around.

Welcome back to the show, Anna Casparian and Emma Viglin with you. You can check out Emma's work over at the Majority Report, but don't do it quite yet, because we still have a lot more news to get to, including this next story. So let's do it. Right there from January 6th, you can see the fall knot right there on this gentleman's chest. Mr. Daniel, yes or no, are you aware that your advertising department, uses imagery affiliated with white supremacist movements in its marketing materials. Yes, you've heard that right. Symbols associated with white supremacists are apparently showing up

in ads for gun manufacturers. And that was the topic of discussion during a House Oversight Committee hearing on gun violence, mass shootings, and the type of advertisements that are used by gun manufacturers to lure in some of these buyers. Now, the hearing included testimony from Daniel Defense CEO Marty Daniel and also Ruger CEO Christopher Killoy. And in this next clip, AOC decided to specifically confront the CEO of Daniel defense about the type of symbols used in their advertising. Let's watch.

So this is featured prominently in your advertisement, that tattoo. You've indicated that you don't know what it is, but Ms. Sampson, as an expert in this area, can you briefly tell us what that tattoo is? That's a fall knot, and it's a symbol that has been increasingly embraced by white supremacist. So Mr. Daniel, you may or may not know, but your company's advertisement prominently displays iconography associated with white supremacist movements. You can also find it in this other photo that I will be pulling up right now. Right there from January 6th, you can see the fall knot right there on this gentleman's chest.

Mr. Daniel, yes or no, are you aware that your advertising department uses imagery affiliated with white supremacist movements in its marketing materials? No, ma'am, I don't think we do. Okay, no, reclaiming my time. Thank you. So look, there are a lot of issues. Even if you're skeptical of the claim that these types of symbols are prominently featured in the ads by these gun manufacturers, there are other advertising methods or tactics used by these manufacturers that tend to attract or target certain individuals who probably shouldn't have guns. So for instance, making guns, more appealing to a far younger demographic, potentially, you know, kids who probably shouldn't

want guns or have guns. We've seen examples of that. Or, you know, these pink handguns to attract women and female buyers. And just to go back to the Volnaut that was mentioned by AOC in those clips, well, it's not of the slain. It's an old Norse symbol that often represented the afterlife in carvings and designs. It's often considered a symbol of the Norse god of Odin. Some white supremacists, particularly racist odinists, have appropriated the symbol to use as a racist symbol. Often they use it as a sign that they are willing to give their life to Odin, generally in battle. So fun stuff. Losers, losers, like just go to Comic-Con.

I mean, I just stop with this cosplay. It's so ridiculous, but they're always trying to find some like mythological reason that the whites are the best. And here, let me put on my costume and I feel like a big man. But she also in that hearing, I'm not sure if you have the clip, but pointed out that that same gunman, manufacturer, I believe, was selling weapons with the floral print that the boogaloo boys wear as a symbol of, you know, their fealty to one another. Hey, let's all wear flowers and we'll be a white supremacist group together. Yippee, again, the amount of dress up that is involved with these white supremacists will never, never fails to to amuse me. But it just goes to show these companies, these corporations, manufacturing, these guns, you know they have market research in-house that says, this is your key demo. These are all intersectional issues. All of the people that want to, and I'm sure me even using that term would trigger these very people. But all of these people who want to dress up and

pretend and be a big man and be a white supremacist who kicks down at other groups, they also want to feel empowered by buying something as a consumer as an extension of their genitalia. So they feel like big men in a society that is not necessarily entirely geared toward them at this point. Oh no, they see a black couple in an ad. That's in the front towards me. Let me go buy a gun so I can feel powerful in the world that doesn't make sense to me anymore. So these gun manufacturers know exactly what they're doing. And I think she did an excellent job of highlighting those points, because that's the reality. They're complicit in the fact that these mass shootings are disproportionately done by right-wing

extremists. They understand that this is their key demo, and that's why targeting the manufacturing of these weapons is the way to go with gun control, not empowering law enforcement with more background check ability or more red flag law ability, because we already know law enforcement's discretion is very questionable. Target the manufacturing and sale of these, get them out of circulation. That's the only way to actually change things in this area. Right. And I know that there are, you know, there might be differences on where we stand on gun control. I'm sure we agree on most of it. But I'm of the mind that, you know, I think law abiding, responsible adults should be able to purchase certain guns, right? I think certain assault

weapons, more importantly, high capacity magazines are an issue and we should look at it. But I'm not in the camp of we should ban guns, we should do away with the Second Amendment. I think that there are plenty of people in this country who are responsible gun owners for whatever reason, whether it's for self-defense and they keep it in their own home and, you know, some sort of safe or lockbox or it's a hobby of theirs. They like to go hunting in their rural community. I don't want to take that away from people. But the problem that I have overall when it comes to the advertising that I've seen from gun manufacturers, and this is separate from the appeal to white supremacist, which is an even worse issue if you ask me, is just like this

effort to provide cover or just kind of like help people forget the fact that we're dealing with a lethal weapon here, right? It's not a toy. So even if you were to take what gun manufacturers and their, you know, advertisements have to say at face value, oh, the floral design has nothing to do with the boogaloo boys, we swear. Okay, why does a gun, a legal, a lethal weapon get like a floral print? It's not a 1950s vintage dress. It's a freaking gun. You know what I'm saying? Like it just, it doesn't, and it, it sends this message that it's totally fine to not be responsible with your gun, right? How many people just willy-nilly leave their gun out within reach of their own children. I mean, how many people forget the fact that they're dealing

with a lethal weapon and they co-sign on their son, like the Uvalde shooter, being able to purchase certain guns? Like, it's a huge problem in terms of messing with the way people perceive guns and their lethal and how lethal they are. Now, I want to get back to the hearing because there's more to get to. Now, Daniel, who's the CEO of one of these gun manufacturers, said he was not a of the iconography and that he did not directly participate in the advertising. He's just the CEO. I mean, he's just the CEO, but he has no idea what they're doing with their advertising. I mean, that's the hard working CEO that, you know, just has no idea what they're putting in their ads. Kicking it down to his subordinates, pure conservatism per usual.

Exactly. He decried the recent wave of massacres across America, but said they were a local problem that should be addressed locally? Okay, we don't live on an island. If you're in a particular state, you don't have closed borders with the rest of the country. So the idea that this is a local problem is laughable to say the least. But we're talking about people who have a massive profit motive here, right? So that's worth discussing as well. That's something that AOC focused on and addressed a little bit. So let's get right to that. So let's talk about what the profits have been for these two gun manufacturers in particular. Daniel Defense, the manufacturer of the AR-15 style rifle that the Uvalde

gunmen used to kill 19 children and two teachers, offers its firearms for sale through a buy now, pay later financing system advertised on its website. The company's revenue from AR-15 style rifles tripled. It tripled from 2019 to last year from just a mere $4 million to $120 million. Meanwhile, Ruger's gross earnings from the same style rifles nearly tripled from 2019 to 2021, from 39 million to over 103 million. Ruger's rifles and pistols were used by mass shooters in Sutherland Springs, Texas in 2017 and Boulder, Colorado in 2021. And AOC wanted to draw attention to the correlation between record gun profits and the increase of these massacres across the country.

Let's watch. In 2020, again, more than 45,000 Americans died by gunfire, reflecting in almost three-fold increase from 2015. Are those statistics correct? That's accurate. So in your view, are you seeing a correlation between gun profits and gun deaths in the United States? Yes.

This is about blood money. Between 2019 and 2021, two years, leading gun manufacturer, Sturm and Ruger, saw gross profits double to almost $280 million. In fact, during an earnings call, their CEO called the sales boom, quote, historic, ferocious and that the future was bright. A month after that, an AR-5556 pistol murdered 10 people at a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado. Now, I share that with you because it always goes back to what I think the best, analysis is in regard to where we are in this country and why we are where we are.

It's not because people are good or people are bad. The profits matter. Corporations, capitalism indicates you got to maximize your profit. You have a fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders to return on whatever investment they made. in your company, right, to return a profit to them. That is their fiduciary responsibility. So when you have a system with lawmakers who get legalized bribes from these corporations, who have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, those profits will always take priority over human lives. Do a systemic analysis of why we're experiencing what we're

experiencing. I think too much of the analysis just focuses on, oh, well, mansion's a bad guy or gun manufacturers or bad people. And look, that might be true. But whether or not they're good or bad is really irrelevant when you take a step back and you see how this system is set up and how the system incentivizes profits over human lives. Yeah, it's a fast. It's a facile analysis when it's only focused on individual actors and even guns in general. Now, look, I'm a I differ from, I think on the left, there's a broad spectrum of how people want to approach gun control. I do think that there is a troubling managerial liberal impulse from the coasts when it comes to gun control. There's a reason that Michael Bloomberg is, this is his only issue,

right? This is the only corporate greed that he feels emboldened to actually challenge. And there are a lot of types like him as well, where overall, this is a problem. of profits being unrestrained, unfettered capitalism. Because when you hear good guys with a gun and that kind of rhetoric, that's because they want more people to buy their weapons. It is a problem of unfettered capitalism. And there are deadly results when it comes to climate change on that front, and there are deadly results when it comes to the flood of weaponry on that front.

But the latter is one that can be exploited in terms of fears. fears. So when people are constantly fearful that they're going to get gun down, it increases the purchase of these weaponry as has been borne out in those statistics. And so they are exploiting people's fears to that degree. There's, it's interesting too, by the way, that AOC is on the oversight committee. I'm always reminded when she's in these hearings because I think Pelosi placed her there because she'll be the attack dog for gun manufacturers or Republicans in oversight. But keep her off the energy committee, keep her off the financial committees, naturally where it might be a little bit more substantive. But regardless, this is still

does have value. There are three things that we could do that I think are great common sense gun reforms. One, we have to target the manufacturing of these weapons of war. They should not be on our streets. Other weapons, you get a license, you can own it. I believe in that. But you also, also, we need to do a lucrative gun buyback program because there are just too many out there. It doesn't need to be mandatory, does not, and I don't think it's I don't think it could be mandatory in this country, but you make it lucrative, three times the price of the gun. The government can buy it back from you. And then thirdly, as I mentioned, licensure. If you can need more steps to drive a car, to become a hairstylist, all of these

things than to buy a weapon, that is a problem in this country. And then I think we can actually get serious about gun control. But as always, I'm appreciative of her well-resour. attacks on that on that committee. Absolutely. Well, we got to take a break. Time is just flying today. But when we come back, an incredible 45 second speech

given by a 12-year-old girl who is furious about reproductive rights being stripped from women in this country. So we've got that story and more coming right up. Don't miss it. Welcome back to TYT. Gotta say, nothing inspires me more than a strong female.

And you're about to see a 12 year old display just how strong she is. Let's watch. If a man decides that I'm an object, it is unspeakable and tragic things to me, am I a child? Am I a child supposed to carry in birth another child? Am I to put my body through the physical trauma of pregnancy? Am I to suffer the mental implications? A child who had no say in what was being done with my body. Some here say they are pro-life.

What about my life? That's a 12-year-old. Speaking before state legislature, the state legislature in West Virginia, her name is Addison Gardner, and she is among dozens of people who showed up to that very hearing to voice their concerns about an anti-abortion proposal, which ultimately passed in the state house. Now, lawmakers are currently considering House Bill 302, which would ban almost all abortions except for pregnancies with medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, or fetuses deemed medically non-viable. And what I love is that here you have a young girl, she's 12 years

old, most 12 year olds are not really privy to what's happening in state and local politics, but she's very much aware, she understands the consequences, and she has the courage to stand there and deliver in such an eloquent, articulate way, how much hypocrisy is behind this notion that these lawmakers are doing it to protect life? And Emma, I have a lot more context in regard to how West Virginia lawmakers got to this point. But before I get to all of that, I wanted to hear your thoughts on Addison, because I just thought she was incredible. I mean, go Addison. When I was 12 years old, I was just so afraid of being liked that I would never, never stand up for what was right to that degree or put myself out there like that. That takes an immense amount of intestinal fortitude, as they say. And so she deserves all the credit in the world. And I'm sure she's going to go on to do great things. Because if she has the confidence then, hey, she should have it later in life as well many times fold. But the exceptions that were listed there really wasn't.

stands out to me. And I just want people who are watching this to get in the habit of dismissing every time there's a discussion about exceptions for a miscarriage or for rape or incest because they're largely red herrings as a way to distract from the brutality of the bill. For rape and incest exceptions, you would have to prove that in the court of law. Do you know how long that would take at least months, maybe years, and the pregnancy would go all the way through at that point. So it is just a way to dilute the brutality of what Republicans are trying to do across these state legislatures across the country. And it's very similar for life of the mother, because what they're trying to do in those instances are just to get the doctors way too

afraid to do anything at all. And so, hey, it has a chilling effect. And all of those, those caveats are just a way to distract from the reality of Republican brutality. You know, Emma, it's such an important point, and I'm happy that you're making it here, because I get kind of irritated with how both the media and our politicians get stuck at debating exceptions to this incredibly draconian treatment of women. Because in reality, all of those exceptions would require the woman to explain what she's going through. Like, just think about what that experience is and how much you want to keep that. Like, you'd have to explain yourself and give detailed information about your private life to the government in order to qualify for an exception to make a decision about your own life, your own health, your own body.

I like, let's move on. It actually infuriates me almost as much as when the leaked draft opinion was being reported on. And inevitably, you have some members of the media who are obsessed about who the leaker is. Oh yeah. Who cares? Who cares? I don't care at all. Doesn't matter, doesn't matter. And when you and and when you engage in that battle, you're falling into falling into Republicans traps about that. They will also want to frame abortion as something that just happens and can only be acceptable when something so awful has happened to you, like a medical emergency or a rape or incest, then that horrible act, that horrible act of ending a pregnancy is acceptable. No, it's always, always acceptable for a woman to take control of

her own body. And so the framing of it is a disaster. I don't think anyone, any woman should have to explain or disclose all these detailed personal elements of her life to the government to be able to make a decision about her body. And by the way, the very people who are now forcing women to go through this are the ones who just, I know I've made this point before, but I can't get over it. They were crying about the invasiveness of wearing a mask during the pandemic, dealing with a highly contagious virus, they thought it was the biggest violation of their personal liberties. But let's just take a moment to consider what a body goes through in nine months of pregnancy. And also what a body goes through during childbirth in a country where the maternal mortality

rate is the highest of any developed nation. Just think about that. And then on top of it, there's no support for medical care and how to pay for it. There's no social safety net for someone living in poverty who wouldn't be able to afford raising a child. And the response from these right wingers is, well, just put the kid up for, I mean, if you can't do it, just put the kid up for adoption. Lots of people want to adopt your kids. No, they don't. Yeah, yeah. No, they don't. They don't adopt any of the kids already in foster care. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of children all throughout this country. It is not about that. It's about controlling women, and it's about saying, hey, you're in an

abusive relationship. Well, if you're pregnant, you don't really have an option to leave. And if you want to have some economic independence, hey, maybe you don't really have an option to do that because you have to raise this child that you didn't want. I mean, it's all about controlling women and they work backwards from that. And so you always have to reframe it in that way. Exactly. And so what was the aftermath of this hearing? Well, unfortunately, hours after Gardner spoke, the Addison Gardner, a 12 year old, the House narrowly adopted an amendment to the bill to allow abortions in cases of rape or incest. But the exception in the amendment, which passed 46 to 43, is allowed only up to 14 weeks of pregnancy and only if the rape or incest is reported to police. I mean, it is, beyond invasive. It is a violation of a person's autonomy. It's a violation of their freedoms, a violation of patient doctor privilege. It's just, it is exactly what Republicans claim to be against, which is big government controlling your life. But whenever they talk about small government,

I just want you all to remember, they're not talking about small government impacting the lives of ordinary Americans, right? They want big government impacting the lives of ordinary working Americans. They want small government for one thing and one thing only, and that is corporations. They don't want any government intervention, they don't want any labor laws protecting us. They don't want them to have to do, you know, they don't want employers to have to pay minimum wage, they don't want employers to have to provide decent working standards and conditions to to keep us safe, they want government out of any type of regulation that would impact corporations and cut into the profits that these corporations can make. But when it comes to us, they can't

get enough with that big government. Big government all day, baby. Yeah, and again, these exceptions for incest and rape, say you're a victim of incest and you're 14 years old. It's your dad, it's your uncle. You gotta report that to the police. If not, if not, you gotta have that baby. And the reality is that they think, and even Matt Walsh, the conservative commentator, said it, if you're not in the position to deal with the consequences of having sex, you better not have sex. That's what they say. They perceive it as a punishment. If you're going to be promiscuous, or if you're going to be so bold as to have a baby or take your reproductive health into your own hands

and not have it be completely at the whim of the inseminating partner, the male, male, cis male or whatever, then you deserve to be punished for it. And the baby will be your punishment. And that is the reality. It's a theocracy. And they have to launder it through a variety of other talking points because what they're advocating for is so brutal and unpopular that they have to hide the ball. Exactly. Well, let's get to one more story before we wrap up our first hour and don't miss the second hour. We've got a lot more to get to then. I want to talk a little bit about how vicious

Republican lawmakers are in the Senate, even when it comes to taking care of the health and well-being of our own military veterans. GOP lawmakers are so incredibly vicious that that they just blocked a bill in the Senate that would have expanded health care access for military veterans who have become ill from exposure to be to what's referred to as toxic burn pits. Now eight Republicans actually ended up joining Democrats in the 55 to 42 vote. But remember, that's still five votes short of the 60 votes required to advance the legislation. That's due to the legislative filibuster that we've talked about so often on this show within the Senate. Majority leader Chuck Schumer switched his vote from yes to no so the bill could return to the

Senate, CNN notes. Three senators, though, didn't vote on the measure at all, probably because it's incredibly embarrassing to vote no on expanding health care to take care of our sick veterans who our lawmakers have told us over and over again have sacrificed their lives and their well-being to protect our freedoms. When it's a talking point that benefits them politically, they'll say it. But when they have an opportunity to put their words into action and actually take care of our veterans, they don't do it. Now, burn pits, if you're wondering, were a common way to get rid of waste at military sites during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this century, and millions of veterans have fallen ill after being exposed to toxins in the pits. And I just want to

remind you all that this isn't the only health related issue plaguing our veterans that Republican lawmakers have turned their backs on them on. For instance, when it comes to veterans suffering from PTSD as a result of multiple tours in Middle Eastern countries, they have been completely neglected on that issue as well. This is a mainstay within the Republican Party, something that they just without any embarrassment or shame continue to vote against. Again, the expansion of healthcare for our veterans. And if they're unwilling to do that for our veterans, obviously they're even more unwilling to do that for ordinary Americans as well. Now Biden advocated for this legislation because he believes that his son Beau died of brain

cancer as a result of exposure to these burn pits. And Senate Veterans Affairs Chairman John Tester, Democrat from Montana said in a statement that Republicans who blocked advancement of the measure choose today to rob generations of toxic exposed veterans across the country of the health care and benefits they so desperately need. He said more veterans will suffer and die and die as a result. And again, let me reiterate, it's the pro-life Republican Party that blocked this bill in the Senate? Emma. I mean, I know that John Stewart was on the ground advocating for this, and I'm not sure if we'll have time for that clip, but if we do play it, it's very poignant, and people should check it out. Because he does this every year for 9-11 first responders,

pretty much Republicans try to block the legislation that would fund their health care. And now, for the victims of burn pits, veterans who fought in these illegal wars, particularly Iraq, that Republicans were all gung ho for, right? Fighting for our freedom, and by freedom, we mean securing oil. Right. It's just, I like, so they sacrifice their lives, they sacrifice their bodies, they sacrifice their mental health, all for this false notion because they were lied to by these same Republican politicians. And then they come back here to the United States, Republicans use them as human props for the continuation of those kinds of wars to secure profit overseas, which thankfully, you know, Biden withdrew from Afghanistan

and hopefully we're entering into a new era. But make no mistake, this was a neo-conservative project for decades and decades and decades. Then they come back here to the United States. Oh, no, you're screwed. You're screwed on principle because we are such monsters. And it's such a clarifying moment if Democrats chose to actually capitalize on it. We are such monsters that we believe so much in the principle that the government should not be involved in your health care, that even though we sent you over there and you're going to get cancer and diseases as a result of the illegal war that we wage and you were our foot soldiers, we're not going to help you when you come back. You deal with that on your own.

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and deal with the cancer and the effects from the illegal war that we pushed you into. Yeah, I mean, they love big government when it comes to controlling people, particularly women's bodies and reproductive health. They want small government when it comes to providing health care for for those who are suffering the physical and mental consequences of being sent abroad for these nonsensical wars that are usually done on behalf of multinational corporations. But one final thing that I will say about this is, you know, recently, Jordan Ewell shared a tweet and it was a celebratory tweet because the military is having a difficult time recruiting new members.

And so it's unsurprising when you come across stories like this where it's abundantly clear that our veterans are not valued, that the government just tosses them aside, doesn't provide them with the healthcare they need to survive. And that's terrible enough. But what I'm actually really concerned about Emma is that if they continue to have these issues, I mean, the government's pretty vicious, I don't put it past them to start implementing a draft, especially when it comes to certain wars to get our hands on certain minerals that are needed to make the batteries for electric vehicles. I mean, we've already attempted a coup in Bolivia, which luckily, thanks to the people of Bolivia fighting back, we're able to reverse. But there's a shortage of lithium. There's a shortage of all sorts of minerals necessary

for the batteries for these electric vehicles. And if we're gonna move in that direction, which obviously makes a lot of sense, the question is how are these companies gonna get their hands on these minerals? And if our military doesn't have enough manpower to will our way into these countries and get our hands on the resources, I'm worried that they're actually going to start implementing drafts and things like that. I don't know, maybe I'm being a little too paranoid. But no, don't you should never know. I mean, you understand this from working in this field for so long. You should always be as paranoid as possible when it comes to the machinations of the national security establishment.

Because that is absolutely the next frontier. I mean, we conduct untold numbers of drone strikes and secret operations in, in Eastern Africa as well. That is very underreported. And that's also about securing resources to a degree. But particularly in South America, we have been openly supporting coups in different countries. Even John Bolton talked about how it's what a shame that we, that, that my coup in Venezuela was unsuccessful. Oh, what did I say that? Because what did they want there? They wanted Guido to be the president so that they could have better access to the oil fields in Venezuela. And it didn't matter what the democratically elected or what the people wanted in Venezuela. Same thing in Bolivia.

Same thing in countless countries historically across South America. And that's all about the procurement of resources for capital. So everybody should be very aware when this kind of rhetoric ramps up, these ghouls in the Republican Party, these neocons will use human bodies for whatever they want to get the resources that they need to help benefit. industry in this country. Yep. And as soon as they come back, they want you to either shut up and die or shut up and go away because you can't demand something of the country that we gave you a free education in the military.

Isn't that enough? If you come back with disease, hey, that's on you, boo. You deal with that. And that is what the Republican project is in this country. So as annoying, maybe as Biden or Kamala Harris is or some of the Democrats, and I know they're terrible as well, but the Republicans are evil. And that is something, I mean, we, I think hopefully hammer home a lot, you and I. Yeah, proudly so. Like, they're, they're evil proudly. It's amazing. All right, well, we got to take a break. That does it for our first hour. When we come back

for the second hour, we'll talk about the formation of a third party by Andrew Yang and Republican officials. So we'll get to that later. Also, Donald Trump statements about Saudi Arabia, pretty incredible stuff. We've got that and more coming right up. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.