This is the Humanist Report with Mike Figueredo. The Humanist Report podcast is funded by viewers like you, through Patreon and PayPal. To support the show, visit patreon.com forward slash humanist report or become a member at humanistreport.com. Now, enjoy the show. Welcome to the Humanist Report Podcast. My name is Mike Figueredo and this is episode 219 of the program. Today is Friday, November 22nd and before we get started, I want to take some time to thank all of our newest Patreon, PayPal and YouTube members, all of which signed up for the very first time to support us this week or increase their monthly pledge. And that includes Adam Prine, Brad Ham, Brandon, Chewie Treme, Claudette Cohen, Habba Ristra, Jeremy Friedman, Jordan Darrett, Kimberly Bettel Casey, Michelle McConnell, Ravi Yajnik, Theresa, Thomas Slife, Wasmers and Zachary Fluke. So thank you so much to all of these kind individuals. If you'd also like to support the show and join the independent progressive media revolution, you can do so by going to humanistreport.com slash support patreon.com forward slash humanist report or by clicking join underneath any one of our YouTube videos. As usual, we have a jam packed episode. What we have on the agenda for today's show is Joe Biden, who laughably suggested that marijuana is a gateway drug. He said this recently, not in 2010, but in 2019. We'll talk about Jen Ugar's congressional run. Elizabeth Warren's triangulation on Medicare for All. Pete Buttigieg's disingenuous attempt to appeal to black voters in South Carolina. Bernie Sanders slams Donald Trump's endorsement of Israel's lawlessness. We'll talk about Fartgate. And on top of that, we'll talk about the conservative meltdown over Chick-fil-A. We'll talk about the Democratic Party primary debate. AOC describes the pressure that members of Congress feel to conform. And she'll also give us reasons why impeachment is good and why we should support impeachment. We'll talk about the Pete Buttigieg surge, along with Mark Cuban, who is another billionaire who's going to explain to us why capitalism is good and why we can't have nice things like Medicare for All. And finally, we will close the show by talking to the 2020 congressional candidate, Melanie Derigo. So that's what we've got on the agenda for today's program. Hopefully, you guys will enjoy the show. Let's go ahead and waste our time and get right to it. So, elitist Pete's presidential campaign was on the brink of death until the mainstream media wished a surge into existence. And then lo and behold, he started actually surging. It's almost like the mainstream media has way more influence than people realize. Now, at first, it was evident that they were overstating the surge. They were being overly hyperbolic. But after weeks of fighting coverage and nonstop praise, well, he now actually is surging. And it's to the point where I don't think we can ignore these numbers. This is pretty startling actually. So according to a CNN poll, he jumped to first place in Iowa and is now leading with 25%. That's nine points ahead of the person in second place. And that's Elizabeth Warren. Now, it's not just Iowa because in New Hampshire, he also jumped to first place there and he's leading by 10 points according to a St. Almsom College poll. Now, even though national polling only puts him at 8.3%, when you look at RCP averages in Iowa, well, he's taken the lead overall. And while he's not in first overall in New Hampshire as of yet, you can see a sharp increase and he just recently passed Bernie Sanders. Now they are still technically statistically tied at the moment, but nonetheless, he is on the same trajectory in New Hampshire that he was in in Iowa. Now, the reason why Iowa and New Hampshire matter is because even though he doesn't have much support nationally, if a candidate wins Iowa and New Hampshire, that can propel that candidate with a lot of momentum to first place. And they could win the nomination. Barack Obama ended up winning Iowa, and that really propelled him to victory when everyone thought that Hillary Clinton already had the primary wrapped up back in 2008. So if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, I mean, he could win the entire thing, which is really great news for Donald Trump. Because out of head-to-head matchups tracked by real clear politics, Pete Buttigieg has the worst chances against Donald Trump with a 4.5% lead overall. Now of course, that still is a lead nonetheless, but Hillary Clinton was also leading at this same point in time in 2015. But we all know how the 2016 election turned out. She ended up losing to Donald Trump. Now, the difference between Hillary Clinton and Pete Buttigieg is that at this point in time, she actually was pulling higher against Donald Trump with an average of 5.8 percentage points ahead of Donald Trump based on a sample of polls that I selected from that period. And yes, I did do the math and averaged these out. She was doing better than Pete Buttigieg. And when you compare Pete Buttigieg's general election matchups with other candidates, he performs the worst against Donald Trump. For example, Biden beats Trump on average by 10 points. Bernie beats Trump on average by almost 8 points and beats him in crucial rust belt states that Hillary Clinton lost. Warren beats Trump by 7.3 points on average. Even Kamala Harris beats Trump by 5.3 points. And when you look at all the hypothetical matchups between Pete Buttigieg and Donald Trump, I mean, you can see that it's a toss-up. Trump wins about half the time. And the problem is that Donald Trump hasn't started going in on Pete Buttigieg yet. In the event he were to be the nominee, I think it would be reasonable to expect Pete Buttigieg's numbers to plummet. Now, you need a really large cushion because I think that Donald Trump will be successful at possibly driving down support of whoever the Democratic Party nominee is. So you need to have someone as the nominee who can lose at least a couple of percentage points. But I think that Donald Trump would paint him as an elitist who's out of touch. Donald Trump would run his fake populist campaign again. And I think that Donald Trump would most likely drive down support for Pete Buttigieg and beat him. Now you can argue that I'm wrong because polling says otherwise right now. Okay, that's fine. But again, just remember that Hillary Clinton was polling better than Pete Buttigieg is polling now against Donald Trump at this point in time. So, I mean, I don't know how else to describe this as be prepared for another four years of Donald Trump if Pete Buttigieg is the nominee. So, I mean, the problem is that the media, by propping up Pete Buttigieg in this way, they are inadvertently helping Donald Trump. Because if Donald Trump is going up against anyone, he should hope it's Pete Buttigieg.  Now, Pete Buttigieg isn't doing any favors for himself because as he managed to move back into the spotlight. Well, I mean, he's really letting his inner Republican show, which means that the Democratic Party base will be demoralized. They likely would stay home as they did for Hillary Clinton, not support him. He wouldn't have the support of young people. And that would pretty much guarantee that he's not going to be successful. Now, to give you a little bit of examples of what I'm talking about here, he is using Republican talking points against Medicare for All, and he conspicuously turned on Medicare for All after the industry started donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign. He is now arguing against free college because millionaire and billionaire children will take advantage of free college. This is nothing more than pseudo-adversarialism because rich people's kids do not go to public schools. They go to private schools. And if he really was about sticking it to the elites as he's trying to make you think he is here, he'd just be in favor of a wealth tax.  Great guy here. And on top of that, he also unironically floated the idea of sending U.S. troops to Mexico to combat gang and drug violence that is literally happening because of our war on drugs. So he's bad on the policy and part of the reason that Pete Buttigieg shouldn't be propped up by the media is because you're not going to win this election without the support of Black people, which he absolutely is struggling to win over for good reason, because of scandals that are plaguing his campaign with regard to South Bend. And on top of that, you're not going to win if you don't have young people behind you. Young people are not on board with what Pete Buttigieg is offering, because even though he touts himself as the millennial who's going to bring about generational change, this is a millennial with boomer energy. He is not on board with what we want.  I mean, I'm sure that every millennial is just thrilled about this. Now, he also recently got booed by young people for disparaging Medicare for All. Take a look at this video. And it's why we need to deliver healthcare to every American, because you're not free if you don't have it. That was young people who was shouting him down, who was shouting Medicare for All at him. On top of that, when he thinks not very many people are watching, look at how condescending and dismissive he is to young people who are concerned about climate change. This is a video from the Sunrise Movement. Do you support the Green New Deal? Yeah, check out online so you can see how our idea of dealing with climate work. But the public housing act, that was just proposed. You can see my housing plan. I don't know about other people's, but you can read about mine. It was just proposed in Congress. Okay, well, I just proposed mine so you can start with mine and then compare. I did read yours. Okay, do you think it matches up? I don't. Okay, well then I guess the answer is no. I don't think it's bold or comprehensive enough to deal with the crisis we face for our climate. Okay, I guess we don't agree. Thanks for coming. I guess we don't. So, Pete Buttigieg is garbage and you're not going to win without getting out that youth vote. You're not going to win without black people behind you who are the most loyal constituency the Democratic Party has. Period. End of story. But the reason why Pete Buttigieg thinks he has a chance is because he has the most billionaire donors. There hasn't been a single candidate with as many billionaire donors as Pete Buttigieg and he has done a number of fundraisers in the Hamptons with elites. So, celebrities and billionaires love him. But if you don't have young people and black people behind you, you're not going to win. You will lose to Donald Trump, Pete Buttigieg and no amount of cringe worthy high hopes dancing is going to get young people excited about you if you don't deliver on the policy substance. So, Pete Buttigieg more and more is shifting to the right throughout the course of this primary after previously running as a progressive at the start.  So, Pete Buttigieg is someone that we all should be concerned with not just because you know we wouldn't get a Bernie Sanders presidency. But because if we got a Pete Buttigieg Democratic Party nominee, Trump's going to win. I mean that's obvious. That should be easy for everyone to see. Trump is going to win if he's the nominee. You don't have to believe me. But progressives very early on were talking about the viability and electability of someone like Hillary Clinton who was a centrist. Now I still thought that she was going to win against Donald Trump because Donald Trump was that incompetent. But I underestimated just how desperate people were and how demoralized some people were who didn't want to come out to vote even if it meant defeating a fascist like Donald Trump. Pete Buttigieg is not going to win.   So this is someone who is going to be an influence on the Democratic Party for years to come potentially and he's a negative influence and he's not looking out for anyone. He's looking out for himself. So this surge is something that really should concern everyone who wants to see change, who want to beat Donald Trump. Like if we care about electability, then choosing a neoliberal elitist as a nominee is basically guaranteeing a Donald Trump victory. Now, it's going to be hard to defeat Donald Trump. I think he's beatable. I'm not going to underestimate him like I did back in 2016. But we need to make sure that we nominate the best candidate, the most electable candidate and the candidate who's most electable. Is going to be someone who goes after non-voters, people who've stayed home, people who are young, who are getting out to vote for the first time, who are excited to come out. And that person is Bernie Sanders. So Pete Buttigieg, I mean, as I see him surge, I'm watching in horror because not only is he bad for the Democratic Party, again, the dude's going to lose to Trump. So if you're a Pete Buttigieg supporter, think long and hard about your decision to support him because this elitist is going to get crushed by Donald Trump. And I don't want to have to say I told you so, but you should have learned the lesson that 2016 taught us. And if you still haven't learned that lesson that electing a neoliberal centrist isn't going to get people excited, regardless if we're making history, regardless if, you know, it's the first gay president, that's not going to do it. That's not going to excite people. We need someone who's going to deliver on policy. Pete Buttigieg, his centrism, you know, those days are gone. We're moving on past centrism and triangulation. It's precisely what will facilitate a second term for Donald Trump and a permanent capture of the Supreme Court. I mean, if Trump appoints one or two more justices, kiss all your civil rights and civil liberties goodbye. So people who are voting for Pete Buttigieg, you're playing with fire. So I want to talk about a new scandal with regard to Mayor Pete's campaign that I'm sure will have absolutely zero impact on his electoral chances because currently he is in fact surging. So there's a new CNN poll out of Iowa that puts him in first place and real clear politics pulling averages also now puts him in first place in Iowa, surpassing even Elizabeth Warren. Now this surge is happening because this is a candidate whose campaign has been propped up by the mainstream media. He is a fabrication of corporate media who already deemed him the golden boy before he even decided to run for president. Like back in 2016, the New York Times had already written articles about him being the first gay president. And since he entered the race, CNN and MSNBC have given him non-stop praise running segments comparing him to Obama and effectively making his surge a self-fulfilling prophecy. And the reason why I say that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy is because there's something known as the bandwagon effect, right? The media says something, they tell you that one candidate is really great and this candidate is surging and people want to back the winning horse. So they just automatically start gravitating towards that candidate and they jump on the bandwagon. So when the media says that a candidate is really phenomenal and is just like Obama and is surging, well that can more often than not actually become a reality. Which tells you something about Pete Buttigieg that his rise is purely the product of propaganda, full stop. Look, if the media wanted to, they could push Bernie Sanders to first place within weeks. It's entirely up to them, they have that much power, right? They can make a candidate like Donald Trump, for example, completely legitimate by propping him up and covering him non-stop and giving him $2 billion worth of free advertising. And then people, even if they see that negative coverage, realize oh well, he must be a legitimate candidate since there's such a big focus on him. And the same thing is happening with Pete Buttigieg. Now let me tell you something about this scandal that I'm going to talk about. In the event this were a scandal that plagued Bernie Sanders campaign, the media would be calling on him to drop out. Because remember back in 2015, one of the biggest stories was that Bernie Sanders was not attracting much black voters. Now a lot of the issue was that Bernie Sanders didn't have national name recognition and that's part of Pete's problem too. And I'll admit that Bernie Sanders should have done more back in 2015 and 2016 to reach out to black voters. But now that more people know who he is, he actually does have that support and this is an issue that is plaguing newcomers like Pete Buttigieg who don't really have much national name recognition and will also have a really bad track record in his hometown with black constituents. So look, if this were a Bernie Sanders scandal, then it would be done, right? The media would be outraged. But this scandal that I'm going to tell you about has not really been talked about by the mainstream media. So this is a story from Ryan Grimm of The Intercept who talks about how Pete Buttigieg in an attempt to boost support among black voters in South Carolina wanted to get black leaders to endorse his Douglas plan. And his campaign had announced recently that 400 prominent South Carolinians had endorsed his Douglas plan. Now his senior advisor tweeted about this and the campaign also touted the alleged 400 plus endorsements via email. And I say alleged endorsements because there's some issues with the endorsements that he put out. In other words, they're not really endorsements. So as Ryan Grimm explains, listed at the top of the press release were three prominent supporters. Columbus City Councilwoman Tamika Devine, Rehoboth Baptist Pastor and State Representative Ivory Thigpin and Johnny Cordero, Chair of the State Party's Black Caucus. The blowback came immediately. Devine, who has not endorsed the candidate yet in the presidential election, told The Intercept that she did not intend her support for the plan to be read as an endorsement of her Buttigieg's candidacy and believes the campaign was intentionally vague about the way it was presented. Clearly from the number of calls I received about my endorsement, I think the way they put it out there wasn't clear that it wasn't an endorsement of the plan and that may have been intentionally vague. I'm political, I know how that works, she said. I do think they probably put it out there thinking people wouldn't read the fine print or wouldn't look at the details or even contact the people and say, hey, you're endorsing Mayor Pete. Thigpin, meanwhile, has endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders for president and was startled when he learned the campaign had not only attached his name to the plan, but also listed him as one of three prominent supporters atop the letter. How it was ruled out was not an accurate representation of where I stand, Thigpin told the Intercept. I didn't know about its rolling out, somebody brought it to my attention and it was alarming to me because even though I had had conversations with the campaign, it was clear to me or at least I thought I made it clear to them that I was a strong Bernie Sanders supporter, actually co-chair of the state, and I was not seeking to endorse their candidate or the plan, but what I had talked about was potentially giving them a quote of support in continuing the conversation because I do think it's a very important conversation. Johnny Cordero is no longer listed publicly as a supporter. When the Intercept reached him for comment, he explained that he had never endorsed the plan nor has he endorsed Buddha judge. Now, the reason why Cordero specifically didn't endorse the plan was because he didn't want to get on board with the plan that didn't actually consider input from Black leaders. Like, you can't just construct a plan for Black America and say, hey, here's my Black agenda if you didn't even get input from Black leaders and Black South Carolinians. So, of course, he wouldn't want to endorse that plan. Now, the reason why Pete Buttigieg's campaign listed people who didn't endorse the plan as endorsements was because apparently they emailed them and told them via email that if they didn't want their names listed, they'd have to opt out. Yeah, that's literally their excuse here. I mean, that doesn't work. If you want to list them as endorsements, you need their consent. Like, if I played a copyrighted song, for example, Pete Buttigieg's Dumbass High Hope song, and I just said, well, look, I emailed the publisher of this song and I said, I'm just going to take their lack of a response and not opting out of my use of this song as consent to use the song. Well, I would still get a copyright strike on this video for including that song in the video. So it doesn't work that way. But the fact that they're trying to play it off this way shows how disingenuous they are. The campaign just wanted to boost their plan as saying, look, all of these prominent South Carolinians supported.  Now, part of the problem is that if we're going to assume that the 400 plus names on the list actually did endorse people to judge, which we shouldn't, by the way, another question is how much of these people who endorsed this were actually black? Now, the campaign didn't explicitly say that these were all black South Carolinians, but it was implied. Now, when looking at 297 of the 422 names on the list who had voter files that actually selected what their race was, 184 of them were white, meaning that 42% of people to judge entire 400 plus endorsement list came from white people. That means that 62% of the 297 names looked at were white.  Second of all, you need to make sure that the people endorsing it aren't mostly white or disproportionately white. So in other words, to simplify it, he's trying to reach out to black voters by saying, hey, you should support my plan because all of these white people like my black agenda. I mean, I shouldn't have to explain this to a politician, a top tier politician nonetheless, but here it goes. If you are going to construct a plan for black America, you need the input of black leaders. You cannot exclude them from that policymaking process. Their input is absolutely crucial. You can't be overly wonkish and just assume that you know what's best for them because it's not going to work that way.  I mean, again, if Bernie Sanders had done this, had been this disingenuous and deceitful, quite frankly, the media would be calling on him to drop out. But since it's Pete Buttigieg, we're just going to sweep this under the rug, not even talk about it in mainstream media. And that's not all because Ryan Grimm tweeted that Pete Buttigieg's campaign used a stock photo of a Kenyan woman for his Douglas plan. Yeah, which Ilhan Omar responded saying, this is not okay or necessary with a face palm emoji. I mean, Pete Buttigieg is an absolute joke and the fact that he has managed to get back into, the first place, one of four candidates who could very well win the Iowa caucus, it just shows you the dismal state of affairs in American politics, largely due to propaganda from the mainstream media. They absolutely love and adore Pete Buttigieg. They love him. So it doesn't matter what he does. They choose what to cover and what not to cover. They're the filter that determines what you get to see. So if they don't think this is a big story, if they don't think this shows how tone deaf he is in his attempt to reach out to black voters after formally insinuating that they're homophobic for not supporting him in South Carolina, well, they're just going to not talk about this. Sweep it under the rug.  Pete Buttigieg is not a serious candidate and he should be polling near the bottom because he's one of the worst in this race. But the fact that he's a top tier candidate again goes to show you that we need to reform our media apparatus in this country if we truly want real democracy because the options aren't being presented fairly to people. They're being duped by corporate propaganda and the reason why they're being duped by corporate propaganda is because Pete Buttigieg is the candidate for corporate America. He has the most billionaire donors. He started changing his tune on Medicare for All once he started taking a lot of health insurance industry money and got contributions from Big Pharma. And he's made it increasingly clear to corporate America, he's their guy and he's going to be just like Obama. Change on the outside continuity on the inside. So Pete Buttigieg is someone who you need to educate people about because if you know someone who just watches mainstream media and they're in that MSNBC bubble, they may not know how awful Pete Buttigieg is. So we have to do better as progressives at educating fellow liberals in our family and let them know that this person isn't just a bad candidate, but he's potentially dangerous because he is a liability in a general against Donald Trump. And not just that, he's a terrible candidate who wouldn't change anything in the event he were elected. So I mean, the fact that he's not already eliminated because of the police chief controversy in South Bend, it just goes to show you how powerful the media is. If they want someone who is a failing politician whose campaign was basically on the verge of death to be rehabilitated, they could do that if they really wanted to. Donald Trump, who let me remind you, ran as the law and order candidate is now explicitly endorsing lawlessness, at least at the international level because his administration has essentially declared that Israel is above the law because all of the illegal settlements that they've been building and continue to build in the West Bank aren't actually illegal according to the United States in spite of what international law says. Not so much in favor of law and order anymore, is he? Yeah, now as Laura Jakes and David M. Helpfinger of the New York Times explains, the Trump administration declared on Monday that the United States does not consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank a violation of international law, reversing four decades of American policy and removing what has been an important barrier to annexation of Palestinian territory. The announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was the latest political gift from the Trump administration to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has vowed in two elections this year to push for annexation of the West Bank. His chief opponent, Benny Gantz, has until Wednesday night to gather a majority in Israel's parliament or he will relinquish his chance to form a new government, raising the prospect of a third round of elections. The United States in the past has described the settlements as illegitimate and Palestinians have demanded the land for a future state, a goal that has been backed by the United Nations, European governments, and American allies across the Middle East. But President Trump has been persistent in changing United States policy on Israel and the Palestinian territories, moves aimed at bolstering political support for Mr. Netanyahu who has failed to form a government after two rounds of elections with razor thin outcomes. So according to Donald Trump's administration and now the U.S. government, it is our official position to view Israel's settlements that they are building and continue to build in the West Bank as perfectly legally legitimate. Doesn't matter that international law and international organizations, the U.N. have all condemned it, it doesn't matter. We're saying it's fine, so it's fine. Now let me remind you that Donald Trump also moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That is a territory that is disputed, both Israel and Palestine view Jerusalem as their capital.  I don't actually want a two state solution. Let's just go ahead and draw a line on the sand right here.  That's what his stance towards this issue has been.  Also what he's trying to do here is, in the event there is a third election that's called, if Benny Gantz can't actually form a government, he's giving Netanyahu a political gift. He's allowing Netanyahu to say, look, look at all the things that I've managed to accomplish as prime minister. I got the U.S. president to not only move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing Jerusalem as our rightful capital, but on top of that, he is going to allow us to build more settlements with no condemnation. In fact, he's saying that they're legal in spite of what international law says. The other party can't deliver that for you, but I can. That's what Donald Trump is trying to do. It's sickening. Now, what this is, is Donald Trump throwing red meat to his base in the process, because we all know he's going to brag about him being an ally to Israel. And he's going to hope that this helps him politically. Now, Bernie Sanders called it out in, I think, a phenomenal and strong way, saying, Israeli settlements in occupied territory are illegal. This is clear from international law and multiple United Nations resolutions. Once again, Mr. Trump is isolating the United States and undermining diplomacy by pandering to his extremist base. And that's exactly it. While Democrats are worried about being accused of shifting too far to the left and trying to hold the center, Donald Trump is continuing to move to the right and pander to the extremists within his base. And in the process, he's making the world a less stable, less peaceful place. It's absolutely morally reprehensible. What Israel is doing should be condemned by everyone, and it shouldn't even be controversial. But now, the official position of the U.S. government, because of Donald Trump, is that Israel can just straight up take Palestinian land. And there's nothing anyone else can say or do about it, because on the UN, we can throw our weight around. We can stop other countries from trying to push back because we have veto power. It's, I don't know what to say about this, but it's sickening. So Bernie Sanders, time and again, has consistently showed that he is the best on this particular issue. Now, when I say the best, don't confuse that for saying that he's perfect, because I've been critical of Bernie Sanders as well. In fact, I tweeted about him just last week, because I wanted to persuade him to not both sides the situation, because we need to recognize that when it comes to Israel-Palestine, there is a power imbalance here. And we have to acknowledge that. The onus for peace is on Israel. They can end the occupation and end this dispute once and for all. But in spite of my criticisms of Bernie Sanders, no other 2020 candidate has spoken out as forcefully against Israel. Bernie's the best on this issue, because Bernie is not afraid to actually call out Israel and call Netanyahu the racist that he is. They sling around words like anti-Semitic, if you criticize Israel, but nobody is willing to call out Israel for their racist apartheid state Bernie Sanders has. Now, again, not perfect on this issue by any stretch of the imagination, but a lot better than everyone else who's running for president. And on top of that, he actually is best suited to get peace in the Middle East, because he is Jewish, right? Nobody can accuse him legitimately so of being anti-Semitic for criticizing Israel. So if peace is going to come, Bernie Sanders can potentially be an ally in facilitating peace. But we do have to push Bernie Sanders to be open to the idea of a one-state solution and acknowledge the reality of, you know, the fact that the two-state solution is probably just dead at this point. I mean, it's a nice little talking point that people like to use. It's a nice little fan-sitting position. But unless we really start talking about a one-state solution with equal rights for Palestinians, we're not serious about peace in the Middle East. That's just a fact. You know, it's a sad fact of the situation.  No country is above the law. No country should be condoning another country's lawlessness, because if you think that it's okay for Israel to violate the law, then that basically opens the door to other countries who are not our allies violating the law. Think Russia, think China, think North Korea. So if you actually believe in international law, you have to acknowledge that it is universally applicable. It applies to every single country in the world, not just some countries, sometimes for some laws. It is universal. So if you're not going to respect that, then you're not the law and order person you said you were. So it's funny how like just three years into his presidency, he's already abandoned that facade of law and order, which we all know he talked about only because he wanted to stop immigrants from entering the country, because if you have laws, you want to follow them, but only the laws that he likes, of course. And when it comes to international laws, I mean, I'm sure he doesn't even accept their legitimacy or acknowledge that they are a thing, right? He's criticized the Geneva Convention.   He has no moral core. And we have to beat him in 2020 to stop the madness, to stop the international and domestic instability that he has brought with him and his administration. I know that I am super late to the party with regard to this particular subject that I'm sure that most of the excitement has already dissipated. Nonetheless, I still want to talk about this because this is a potential game changer. So as many of you know by now, Cenk Uyghur of TYT announced that he is in fact running for Congress to represent California's 25th congressional district. So this is what he said after he made it official. I will be running for Congress in California's 25th district. I'm going to represent those people in a way that they have not seen before. I will not be a standard politician. I will fight for them.  You know what campaign donations are from big corporations and lobbyists? Bribes. They're bribes when Republicans take them. They're also bribes when Democrats take them. I'm not going to take any of that. And I'm going to fight to get you guys higher wages and to get you health care that your family needs. And my district at this point is literally on fire. And we have got to fix all of this and a standard politician ain't going to do it. Yeah. That is incredibly exciting. And let me just say this could be huge. The influence that he would have in Congress, I mean, it can't be overstated. This could actually change national discourse for the better, just with him being in Congress. Because we need someone who's going to aggressively confront his colleagues to their faces, both in the Democratic Party and Republican Party, and call them out for using corporate talking points. If they don't support Medicare for All, we need someone like Cenk, who's not afraid to connect the dots between them and their corporate donors. Like we need someone who's actually going to fight. And Cenk Ugar over the years, agree or disagree with him on a number of subjects. He's demonstrated that he would in fact be aggressive and loud in the event he were a member of Congress, and he reiterated that in his announcement. Now, people are responding incredibly positively to this because just within that first 24 hours of his announcement, 1,200 people signed up to volunteer, and he raised almost 300 grand by day two from just 10,000 small individual donors. So I think that people realize that there is a tremendous amount of value in Cenk Ugar being a member of Congress.  The establishment would in fact loathe him. They're already backing his opponent in that district, but the establishment would hate him. The Democratic Party would hate him. He would call out Nancy Pelosi. He's been incredibly critical of her. Fox News would focus on him. And as a result, kind of turn him into this media sensation in the same way that they did with AOC. But, you know, the problem with that is Cenk Ugar isn't really like AOC in the sense that he tends to focus on issues like money and politics that are incredibly popular. Like these are issues that are non-partisan issues, both Republicans and Democrats. They believe that money is a corrupting influence in politics. And the way that Cenk Ugar kind of explains how money has corrupted the political process is brilliant, right? The way he articulates that specifically is important. And he explains how, look, if you want the Soros money out, then let's get the Koch money out too. Let's get all the billionaire money and all the money out of politics generally speaking. So there is immense value in that. And him being in Congress would be amazing. So I chipped in 10 bucks because I think that we need people like him fighting for us. And, you know, it goes without saying, I don't agree with Cenk Ugar on everything. Him and I disagree on Russiagate. I angrily tweeted at him before, admittedly, when he covered the Gay Baker case. I thought that he was a little bit too kind to the homophobic Baker because he said, well, you know, maybe this Baker is just principle. He also doesn't do alcohol cakes as well as gay wedding cakes. So I've criticized him before. And on top of that, I think that he does have a different philosophy than I do. He points out correctly, so I think that money in politics really is causing enormous political instability. But I don't actually think that money in politics is the root to all evil. I think that capitalism ultimately is the lowest common denominator.  It turned it into a money-making venture and it doesn't just corrupt healthcare and education. It corrupts electoral politics as well. So the reason why money in politics is an issue is because we live in a capitalist system where we can modify everything, including politics. But I don't have to align with Cenk on every single issue. He doesn't have to be a democratic socialist to get my endorsement. I want someone who's going to fight for the same policies that I believe in. Now, I have no doubt that Cenk Uger would do just that. And that's why if he were to get elected, I would be ecstatic because this is, again, someone that we need in Congress because we need aggressive people. AOC has explained that it is really difficult once you arrive in Congress because there's immense pressure to conform. Cenk Uger doesn't need to conform. He already has a job at TYT. But what would make him even more effective is no other member of Congress has a gigantic media apparatus like the Young Turks. So in the event he's pushing for a particular legislative agenda, he can then go on the Young Turks and talk about how there are members of Congress who are not pushing for this because they're bankrolled by a specific industry. And it would be incredibly successful. And more importantly, he speaks out against leadership in a way that other people won't speak out against leadership. So you see people like Pramila Jayapal and even AOC who are very principled, progressive people, but they are reluctant to criticize leadership. And I get it, right?  So I get it, right? You're trying to walk a fine line. You're not trying to disrupt the beehive, tap it, and get stung.  And that's what we need.  That is what we need. And because he'd be so aggressive, I think that the medium would be inclined to focus on him because he'd be great for ratings. And all around this really could change national discourse for the better. So I think that it's really popular to shit on TYT right now on YouTube and in some progressive spheres.  That's what's lacking in the progressive movement. We need someone to bully people effectively into passing policies. And if they don't, then I want them to worry about the wrath of Cenk, you know, yelling at them and screaming at them for being corrupt if they don't vote for Medicare for all, for example. So having a Cenk Uyghur in Congress during a Bernie Sanders presidency, can you imagine the amount of change that we can push through in a really short span? Like this is what we need right now. And by the way, before I get any controversy, I'm not endorsing bullying. I'm just saying we need someone like Cenk to be aggressive and bully the bullies, essentially. Get these corporate clowns to realize that there is going to be ramifications if they choose to keep being complicit as people die without healthcare.  So we need someone like Cenk and the fact that he's running is incredibly encouraging. And the response shows that there is a desire, there's a demand for this type of progressive. Someone who is going to get in your face and scream at you potentially if you don't acquiesce. It's exactly what we need and it's exactly what the Democratic Party establishment is not going to want. Now, they're already backing his opponent. This is kind of an open field, I believe that George Papadopoulos is running. Mike Cernovich is running as well, who is basically alt light or alt right. I don't know what he is, but the dude is a clown. But Cenk Ugar has a phenomenal chance and I would encourage everyone who is wanting policies that are progressive to be passed to back him. Because, I mean, I've already said everything. We need someone who's going to be in your face in Congress if you're not going to serve the people. And Cenk will serve the people. So yeah, I'm all for it. Cenk 2020. So a couple of weeks ago in the program, we talked about Elizabeth Warren's financing plan for Medicare for all. And I think that you all know by now that I'm not too happy with it. I think that her head tax as a means of financing Medicare for all is incredibly regressive. I think that the best way to do it is through a 7.5% payroll tax. Because if you're doing Medicare for all, then you have to do it right. You have to make sure that it's solvent. You have to make sure that we can fully fund it for generations to come. Because if it's not fully funded, then what's going to happen? Well, you're going to have to strip away benefits. There's going to be calls for privatization. And there's already going to be calls for privatization. So you have to basically construct a Medicare for all system that is fail-proof, right? It can't fail. But with Elizabeth Warren's plan, I don't think that she's worried so much about creating a robust healthcare system as she is about appeasing her critics. However, I can put that criticism aside and just accept that she still was seemingly at that point in time committed to single payer. Although now she released a Medicare for all transition plan that should once and for all put to rest this notion that she's serious about Medicare for all because she's not serious about Medicare for all. Now, when I think about a transition plan for Medicare for all, I'm thinking about after it's already passed once it's signed into law what the implementation will look like. But what she rolls out here essentially is a roadmap as to how she's going to get Medicare for all passed. Now she tweeted about this saying, today I'm sharing my plan to transition to Medicare for all in my first term. We will reverse Trump's sabotage of the ACA lower drug prices, lower the Medicare age to 50 and create a true Medicare for all option and fully transition to Medicare for all. As president, I'll reverse Donald Trump's efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act and will protect people with preexisting conditions. And in my first 100 days, I'll take executive and legislative action to reduce healthcare costs and improve coverage. First, I'll act immediately as president to lower the costs of critical drugs including specific drugs that millions of Americans currently rely on like insulin and EpiPens. And I'll crack down on corruption to rein in health insurers and drug companies. Next, in my first 100 days, I'll use the same process Mitch McConnell used to try and kill the ACA to bypass the filibuster and create a true Medicare for all option more generous than one proposed by any other campaign to begin the transition to Medicare for all. This Medicare for all option will be open to everyone and includes all the healthcare benefits of Medicare for all. It will be immediately free for nearly half of all Americans including all children under 18 and anyone with income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. I'll also let anyone over the age of 50 join the existing Medicare program and I'll improve its benefits and reduce its costs for everyone. We will continue to move forward on healthcare throughout my term including by investing $100 billion in new breakthrough medical research and by creating a new drug development institute at the NIH. And now here's the kicker. By the end of my third year I'll fight to pass legislation to complete the transition to Medicare for all. Once millions have experienced the full benefits of a Medicare for all option and compared it to the corrupt and wasteful system we have today the people will demand it. Now if this were just one policy proposal where you pass Medicare for all and it starts out with a public option that you can buy into and then towards the end of the third year everyone's enrolled in Medicare for all that would be one thing but what she's doing is she's taking the healthcare battle and she's dividing it. She's saying first we are going to prioritize a public option. We're going to have a means tested public option Medicare for all who wants it if you will and we're going to pass that and once I've finished fighting for that once I spend all my political capital fighting on that after the first midterm of my presidency assuming I'll be able to hold on to the house and the Senate which Obama and Trump were both not able to do but she's going to be different assuming she'll still have the house and Senate in her third year of her first term well then that's when we're going to fight for another piece of major healthcare legislation Medicare for all and I'm going to get all this accomplished while not having a real grassroots movement behind me fighting with me for this. This should tell you that she's not serious about Medicare for all her priorities are laid out right here she's prioritizing a public option and Medicare for all she's not prioritizing that she's willing to wait until the third year of her presidency when she probably will lose popularity like most presidents do and not have Congress behind her and that's when she's going to fight for Medicare for all so that way when it inevitably fails she can throw her hands up and say well look I tried she is not serious about Medicare for all now the thing that irritates me I think the most is that actual well-meaning people proponents of Medicare for all like Pramila Jayapal and Adi Barkan they're touting this as a brilliant move by Elizabeth Warren to get Medicare for all passed but this is not Elizabeth Warren playing Forty Chess this is Elizabeth Warren communicating to you in a pseudo-wonkish unnecessarily convoluted way that she in fact is not serious about Medicare for all and what she's trying to do is appease progressives and centrists at the same time by adopting both of their plans and really if you think about it she's adopting one plan a public option because if you are prioritizing one plan over the other then you're not serious about the other plan right because if you want Medicare for all we all know there's no reason to disaggregate this fight to divide up healthcare reform you just pass Medicare for all with all the issues that we have to address climate change campaign finance reform student loan debt cancellation why on earth would you choose to create another obstacle for yourself when you already know that this is going to be a massive battle a public option will be a gigantic battle but now she's saying I don't want to just wage that massive battle I want a second massive battle to deal with I mean look she's not serious about Medicare for all now I think that Carl Bezier of Jacobin perfectly illustrated how this is actually going to play out during the first legislative push Republicans would argue that Warren's first bill is a radical communist government power grab doomed to dysfunction and failure and single-payer activists would be backed into either abandoning the project or insisting that yes the public private plan is actually quite reasonable and good this would one split the movement along entirely predictable lines that are completely familiar to left organizers let's work with Democrats versus we must hold the line to undermine the commitment and investment of activists who have reluctantly decided to support a bill that is at odds with what they think really needs to happen with healthcare in the U.S. three center warrants first plan as the reasonable compromise and the second plan as an unnecessarily radical instance of Democrats pressing their advantage and for exhaust everyone before picking the second fight there is no way the fight for single-payer would survive warrants plan it is practically tailor made to divide, depress, marginalize and exhaust any political will for single-payer before we've even begun the final fight that is exactly how this will play out now the crux of warrants argument is that the reason why it's going to be easier to pass Medicare for all in year three once we already established a public option is because once people get a taste of a government run healthcare plan well they're going to demand it but what do you think is the more likely scenario let's assume she's successful and she passes a public option in year one do you think that Americans will just become complacent and want to move on to the next issue or do you think they'll still be energized to fight for Medicare for all there's a lot of issues healthcare isn't the only thing people want her to focus on I think that people will probably just settle for a public option and be temporarily satisfied with it and think look we got the public option let's move on to something else we don't need to wage this Medicare for all battle right now although 10 years later you know once she fails to deliver Medicare for all after getting a public option while the public option will inevitably fail because it will become overburdened and underfunded and when we start talking about healthcare reform again centrists and Republicans will point to Elizabeth Warren's public option as proof that government-run healthcare just doesn't work and then actually codifying Medicare for all into law will be that much more difficult to achieve so what she's trying to do cleverly so I think is she's hiding the fact that she's triangulating by cloaking her plan in technocratic language but when you remove all the fluff away what remains is the fact that she's not prioritizing Medicare for all she's prioritizing a public option she's telling you Medicare for all is not a priority for me a public option is now the real tell is what Wall Street thinks about this plan and as Doug Henwood of jack been explains Wall Street doesn't believe Elizabeth Warren is serious about Medicare for all and he asks is Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for all phase in plan a shrewd realistic tactical move to win a public health system or a bait and switch to play to Medicare for all's popularity without actually fighting for it Wall Street thinks it's the latter now he goes on to explain how a report from Barclays analyst Steven Valiquette views her plan as a significant change in tone and he writes healthcare stocks rallied on the release of warrants plan meaning that Wall Street which isn't always right but does have some skill in decoding political bullshit sees her plan as political bullshit additionally Barclays estimates a war and style buy-in would boost Humana's earnings per share EPS by 50 cents that's not a massive windfall given current EPS of just under $19 but it is a step in the wrong direction since companies like Humana need to be put out of business as a serious Medicare for all plan would do so Wall Street who has the most lose from a single-payer system isn't worried about Elizabeth Warren that should tell you a lot that should tell you everything you need to know because candidates who support a public option they're doing it because they want to make sure that we can keep that private insurance system intact which means that you don't believe that healthcare should be about the delivery of healthcare you think that there should be a profit motive which means that you're not serious about the decommodification of healthcare now I want to share another argument this is from Ryan Cooper of The Week who explains how it's really important to not compromise before negotiations even begin he writes instead of worrying about the McKinsey mayor more not to worry more about alienating Sanders supporters and dedicated healthcare activists who have sunk enormous political capital into Medicare for all as a rallying point and have been repeatedly betrayed by the democratic establishment it may be necessary to accept half a loaf in the negotiation stage but only then and only because moderates wouldn't accept anything better retreat and hesitation before a single primary election has been held signals a lack of commitment Warren should have stuck to her guns but she didn't she didn't stick to her guns but someone who is going to stick to their guns is Bernie Sanders who tweeted this out after she released her so-called transition plan to Medicare for all in my first week as president we will introduce Medicare for all legislation and there you have it if you support Medicare for all then you pass Medicare for all you don't pass a public option first you pass Medicare for all there's no path to Medicare for all other than passing it and signing it into law Bernie Sanders stands alone here being the only candidate who actually wants to fully decommodify healthcare in the United States of America so the false equivalencies between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders need to stop he's the one candidate who is serious about Medicare for all she can support it in a rhetoric she can be a phenomenal ally on the debate stage when she's teaming up with Bernie Sanders to argue about single-payer versus you know a multi-payer system with centrists but let's be real Elizabeth Warren is not serious about Medicare for all and in the event she becomes president I don't believe we are going to get Medicare for all I would be surprised if she even fought for Medicare for all Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who's proposing a true single-payer system that I know will fight for it other people are not serious about it you can get Tulsi Gabbard's single-payer plus I guess the plus signifies plus private which means it's multi-payer where she's basically creating a plan that sounds like a two-tiered system which is garbage you need to take the profit motive out or Elizabeth Warren who will pay you lip service and say she supports Medicare for all but she's not going to prioritize it I mean look if you truly believe in Medicare for all if you want people to stop dying and going bankrupt if you want a healthcare system that strips out that profit motive and gets rid of private insurance there's one candidate who has made it crystal clear they're going to fight for it it's Bernie Sanders and if you're not going to prioritize that on day one then you're going to put it on the back burner and it's not going to pass so Elizabeth Warren is no Bernie Sanders and I think to call Elizabeth Warren diet Bernie Sanders I think that's giving her too much credit as well she's not even diet Bernie Sanders right she is a fairly left-leaning Democrat in the Senate comparatively but she's nowhere near Bernie Sanders domestically and on foreign affairs on domestic policy she doesn't believe in 100% student loan debt cancellation she doesn't believe in medical debt cancellation on foreign policy she's atrocious it's Bernie Sanders rally behind Bernie Sanders if you actually want someone who will bring about structural change in this country because Elizabeth Warren isn't going to do it and I think she's made that clear throughout the course of this primary it's no secret that Joe Biden is out of touch I think that even his own supporters know that he's out of touch but they're still supporting him regardless because they think that he's more electable against Donald Trump which is laughable but I mean it's no secret that he's not progressive right to put it charitably but I think that a lot of us underestimate how out of touch he really is like he made a comment about marijuana legalization not in 1999 not in 2010 or 2014 but in 2019 that sounds like something a politician from back then would have said so this is what he had to say about the legalization of marijuana on a federal level according to The Hills Owen Doherty speaking at a town hall in Las Vegas on Saturday the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate said whether the U.S. should legalize cannabis on a federal level is still up for debate as far as he's concerned the truth of the matter is there's not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug Biden said according to Business Insider it's a debate and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it Biden as he asked throughout his time on the campaign trail said he supports medical marijuana and insisted possession of the substance should not be a crime but he also said Saturday that he thinks the decision to legalize marijuana should be left up to individual states again I want to remind you he said this recently like this sounds like a quote from a Democrat or Republican like half a decade ago this is just downright embarrassing to still suggest that cannabis is a gateway drug at this point with the amount of evidence we have I don't think it's unkind for me to call you an idiot I think it's just accurate this is a very stupid thing to say marijuana is not a gateway drug marijuana is not addictive marijuana has not killed anybody alcohol has on the other hand we still keep that legal I mean how long is it going to take until people realize that prohibition does not work prohibition never works that's why we made alcohol legal it's why marijuana legalization in the state that it has happened in has been incredibly successful and being from a state that has legal weed I can assure you we're not going out of our way to acquire meth now we're not graduating onto harder drugs nobody's doing that in fact in I believe Colorado marijuana use among young people has actually decreased so there's been nothing but positive effects and on top of that we're raising tax revenue that we are funneling to schools and local projects but yet Joe Biden says you know what we'll just leave that up to the states okay well doesn't it not make sense that we're still locking people in jail in some states for something that is harmless in my state I can walk into a store and legally purchase as much pot as I want but in other states if you have marijuana on you you could go to jail that doesn't make sense and there are going to be some states who are never going to legalize it more conservative Republican run states in the south who will never legalize marijuana and this is a civil liberties issue so why should people in the south never have what we have here in the pacific northwest in fact the whole west coast has legal weed now so when you say this is a states rights issue this is you pivoting this is you sitting on the fence because you don't actually want to take a real stand saying that you support medical marijuana that's not bold Republican support medical marijuana that's not a bold stance at all decriminalization is not bold we need to talk about seriously legalizing marijuana in all 50 states and the fact that you're not going to do that as president shows that you're a joke you're offering people nothing you are offering voters nothing to be excited about I mean this is an issue that would easily get at least some young people excited to vote for you I still wouldn't be excited to vote for you but if you were pushing this I'd say okay well it makes sense because this is an issue that has bipartisan support I mean you're going to get the progressives as well as the libertarians on board why not opt for legalization but you're so out of touch you don't know which way the wind is blowing on this issue which it's blowing towards legalization but nonetheless not enough for you to actually be bold for once in your life I mean Joe Biden it's like he figures out which side of history is the wrong side of history and he opts for that stance rather than just doing what's right because he's a coward he's a hack this states rights issue is incredibly annoying I think that some issues can be states rights issues that's fine but on issues like this where it's incredibly popular the democratic party and Joe Biden would be absolutely morons to not jump on board with an issue that wouldn't make them so popular who's against weed legalization in 2019 support for this will only increase in 2020 so you can actually pound Trump for that take away some libertarian votes in the event you're the nominee which I hope you're not and say look Donald Trump isn't for freedom Donald Trump doesn't even want legalized marijuana federally what a joke I thought he's in favor of freedom and liberty I thought that Republicans say that they believe in freedom and liberty but instead you're just choosing to take a stance that's uh safe and quite frankly idiotic because of course it's not a gateway drug what a stupid thing to say in 2019 like this is just it's perplexing at this point like to be that out of touch like I genuinely don't get it I don't get it now I think that Jules had the best response to this because she said shit libs like Biden are a gateway drug to fascism and that's exactly it because if we keep electing these neoliberal centrist Democrats who get an office and don't do jack shit for the working class then people get more desperate and subsequently become more susceptible to radicalization and then four to eight years down the line we get someone who's probably worse than Donald Trump we get a president Ted Nuget or a fucking president Roy Moore like the radicalization the fascism will be something that draws more people in as they look for answers and Republicans always try to propose answers to people's problems it's the wrong answer it's always scapegoating immigrants but they're proposing answers that speak to people that prey on their desperation and exploit it so Democrats who are neoliberal who aren't actually going to fundamentally change the system they're letting you know that they're not serious about taking on these right-wing demagogues and fascism and in a way they inadvertently enable it and when we're talking about true systemic change we can't have true change we can't have real criminal justice reform if we don't legalize marijuana and I'm not talking about decriminalization I'm talking about legalizing it and allowing people who have been hurt by it the most communities who have been hit the hardest black communities to really have dibs at this new business here because you know legal weed is going to be a very very large industry it's already a multi-billion-dollar industry so for you to just not get on board and fearmonger about it being a gateway drug in 2019 it just shows to me that Joe Biden if he were to go up against Donald Trump it's going to be a bloodbath and not in his favor he's going to get crushed by Donald Trump so I mean what else do you say about this in 2019 Joe Biden is still claiming that marijuana is a gateway drug what a dumbass I really couldn't care less about the Chick-fil-A story when I first found out about Chick-fil-A's donations to anti-gay organizations I had never heard of it because I think it's a restaurant chain that's more popular in the South than I'm in the Pacific Northwest so I've never had Chick-fil-A I don't have one near me so I probably will never have Chick-fil-A and quite frankly I don't care however I'm not going to miss this opportunity to point out the irony of the situation because there's a lot of people who are very outraged about something that Chick-fil-A did and said people want to cancel Chick-fil-A and I'm talking about of course conservatives who oftentimes scream the loudest about cancel culture but now they're threatening to cancel Chick-fil-A because they actually did something good so they decided to stop donating to anti-gay organizations now the way that they did this is a little bit interesting to me because they opened up a restaurant in the UK and they got a lot of backlash from LGBTQ activists who called for boycotts and whatnot because I mean oftentimes being anti-gay is just not good for business that's capitalism right there was no market demand for a homophobic fast food restaurant and they failed capitalism is a motherfucker sometimes I'm sure that my friends on the right will respect the free market with that being said though they realized that you know being anti-gay in 2019 isn't necessarily the best business decision and they learned about that the hard way so they announced that they will no longer be donating to organizations that are explicitly anti-gay and in response predictably conservatives reacted by melting down and threatening to cancel them so Ben Shapiro tweeted Chick-fil-A has survived and thrived because they served everyone and refused to cater to the cancel culture now they've caved at the behest of the censurious left this is a terrible move and just the latest indicator that the center cannot hold a country in which we only eat at restaurants where we agree with the owner's politics when the owner's politics does not affect anything happening inside the restaurant is a country that cannot survive as a unified entity so let's just pause right there and acknowledge how big of a drama queen Ben Shapiro is like on the left and the right nobody is a bigger drama queen than Ben Shapiro because he is reacting to the announcement that a fast food chain will stop donating to anti-gay organizations by basically saying that the country can never be unified Ben just shut up I mean I don't know what to say about this like it must be like so miserable to be outraged and offended by things 24-7 I mean do you ever just take a break from being offended by everything Ben? I mean come on he is the quintessential example of a right-wing SJW who is just authoritarian who wants everyone to do what he wants but will say that that's what the left wants but I mean he's pissed off because they're choosing a company is choosing to not donate to an anti-gay organization but he also says that that was basically holding the center which the center is pro-gay now right? we've moved on this issue so much and I think that most people who are reasonable acknowledge that yes gay people like everyone else should have equal rights there's still a lot of people like Ben Shapiro who believe that gay people are icky and inferior but with that being said that's not the average American I think that most Americans have progressed in a substantial way on this issue we're not perfect yet right? we have a lot of work to go but you know the fact that public pressure works that's capitalism right? if people don't want to buy your product then that's capitalism that's the free market sorting itself out and you know Chick-fil-A is learning the hard way that times have changed but the fact that Ben Shapiro melted down here I mean it just shows the dude is an insufferable drama queen but I also can't forget about my friend Dave Rubin who is literally canceling Chick-fil-A because they gave into cancel culture he tweeted the decision makes absolutely no sense Chick-fil-A was actually cool because it stood up to the progressive mind virus which is cancel culture I'm not going back to that sad dry pathetic Burger King chicken sandwich no way no how back to the home cooked frying pan in other words Dave Rubin a gay man dumbass is angry that they're not going to be donating to anti-gay organizations and they succumbed to cancel culture so to punish them he's going to cancel them high level important ideas this really is the stupidest timeline imaginable and like if Dave Rubin continues on this trajectory like next week he's going to come out against gay marriage and like by next year he'll renounce his homosexuality and like marry a woman or something like that like that's the trajectory that he's on I mean you can only sell out so much to where you start really looking ridiculous and he's past that point like this is this is comical like they're donating to people organizations that are against people like him he's also posted pictures of him eating at Chick-fil-A because you know to trigger the libs because that's edgy I mean do people really care about this like is that really a political statement that you want to make that you ate at a fast food restaurant because they donated to anti-gay organizations it's really not a statement that you want to make and it's certainly not one you want to make if you're literally gay but I mean this is American politics in 2019 where everything is completely stupid and idiotic and Dave Rubin is the perfect representation of modern American political politics but he's not the only person who is joining the cancel culture bandwagon against Chick-fil-A because Ali Beth Stucky who is getting so good at comedy that she's making lefties nervous according to Paul Joseph Watson but she said really Chick-fil-A this is the direction you want to go you've garnered the unconditional support of millions not in spite of but because of your stances which is the sole reason you're successful idiocy buy oh so you're canceling them wow you know what I think it's time that we talk about cancel culture and how it's gone too far oh shut the fuck up everyone shut up just stop stop like I they're outraged because Chick-fil-A isn't going to donate to anti-gay organizations like they're not changing the recipe of the chicken sandwich like if you truly cared about Chick-fil-A wouldn't you applaud this move because you know they're no longer basically telling gay people to go fuck themselves so that would increase their business I mean if they have delicious delicious chicken sandwiches as good as people say they are then wouldn't you want them to do better and stay in business and expand I mean I I don't know what to say about this right-wingers are clowns they really they have a political ideology that's so malleable that they are willing to do exactly what they accuse their political opponents of doing the minute it becomes politically expedient for them so you can rail against cancel culture every single day and denounce SJWism but the minute something happens that makes you feel offended well all of a sudden you turn into an SJW yourself just shut the fuck up stop being such a big fucking baby they've stopped donating to anti-gay organizations it's not like they are donating to pro-abortion organizations or like pro-left-leaning causes or whatever they're just saying we're not going to donate to organizations that are harmful to one particular community but yet that little you know symbolic move is still too much for right-wingers who are that fragile whatever snowflakes here we are the 12 year old in me isn't going to let me pass this up because the world of politics and flatulence has collided in a way that none of us expected Chris so far the evidence is uncontradicted that the president used taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help them cheat an election the clip that I just played for you I wanted to play the off-screen version because I thought that the laughter in it was incredibly contagious but to show you that that wasn't someone who was recording the screen who added that in here's an actual clip of that segment in question taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help them cheat an election an election and the complaint that I've heard from I want to watch it one more time the quality of the humanist report report has gone downhill over the years and this kind of just is like the lowest point in the show's history but I will say at first I thought that it was Chris Matthews but now I'm pretty certain that it's Eric Swalwell who did it because like he pauses the fart is let out and then he continues talking like if you look at the way yeah like he like pushes right so it's him it's him he's the one who did it look if he was still in the race I might consider switching from Bernie Sanders to him just because of this now look to be serious there is a more substantive reason why I'm choosing to talk about this you know it's not just for the laughs you know I think that this speaks to a broader issue with the mainstream media and the state of 2020 politics I'm just kidding I'm just kidding there's no substantive reason to talk about this I can't believe that happened I can't believe that that happened this is such a pointless segment but I mean like I feel like something like this can only happen in 2019 America right if it was Chris Matthews though although I'm pretty certain that it was Eric Swalwell I hope that there's like a petition for him to get fired from MSNBC because of this because that would be hilarious if cancel culture led to that but I'm pretty sure like I said it's Eric Swalwell because that little lift off that he did there like you can't let out a fart that big without like pushing it out but without there being like some type of physical movement and I think that we saw that so I'm pretty certain that it's Eric Swalwell although again not 100% sure but just like looking at his facial reaction you can see like a little bit of a smirk before it came and then after it came as well I think he's the one who's guilty this could have propelled its campaign if he just stayed in the race a little bit longer because I think there's a lot of people who would have voted for him because in America we love voting for assholes and to actually literally hear one on national television I think that would have persuaded quite a bit of voters so you know I don't I don't really know that there's much else to say about this segment I'm not gonna lie I am a little bit ashamed of myself for talking about this but regardless you know yeah this is Fartgate 2019 this will definitely be one of the most memorable moments of the year for sure perhaps of you know this entire political era so yeah this is where we're at the Humanist Report is now covering farts we'll try to do better I promise so I already know that you guys are probably sick and tired of hearing billionaires tell you that you can't have things like health care or education but regardless we're gonna hear from Mark Cuban who is another billionaire who is going to tell you that you know you can't have the nice things that people in his class have take a look Mark Cuban is here he has been a capitalist his whole life and he actually started with nothing and became a billionaire because of hard work and just smarts and luck and luck it does always lock of course so tell me about that what do you think about how 2020 is shaping up and capitalism versus socialism well I mean capitalism is going to win there's there's no question about that but I look I'm never against open discourse that's what makes this country great you know people being able to convey their opinions now I'm not going to agree with all of them socialism just doesn't work Medicare for all I believe health care is a right but you're not going to all of a sudden create an environment well let's just talk about her plan right yeah yeah and you had a Twitter battle yeah not even with her right I think she just let me go but you know if you look at her plan there's just things that just have no chance of passing you know and things that just don't make sense like so part of her plan says employers will take the money that we were paying for insurance and put that into the payment for Medicare for all for their employees now she had the choice of saying let's increase payroll taxes by a certain amount which would have been the more viable way but we what she chose was something called a head tax which says for my companies any company that has more than 50 employees rather than paying a higher payroll tax we're going to charge you the average of the last three years plus an inflator each year for each one of your employees now that means that in her mind that we'll be paying $7,500 to pick a number per year per employee now for somebody who's making $200,000 a year okay that's not bad but what's the impact on someone who's making $10 an hour or $12 an hour or $30,000 a year if you know if you have to hire somebody and the payroll cost is instead of 6.12% or whatever it is right you're having to pay $7,500 per year you're going to have second thoughts slow higher right you're going to have second thoughts about hiring that person even worse as you evolve into her plan you're going to see companies cut payroll benefits because they know if they push their costs down leading into the plan for the calculations it's going to cost them less per per employee and that's going to create additional problems it's just not thought out it's going to hate it because their Cadillac plans go up well yeah I mean yeah look for the Dallas Mavericks it cost me for a family of four my we self-insure and my insurance costs are $29,900 per year but I'm okay with that because our insurance is great and it's a great premium for an employees under Medicare for All they're going to take a huge step back in what they get and like to your point with unions for their Cadillac plans you're going to have a lot of people that are very upset that Medicare for All doesn't provide the quality of care that they're used to and that's going to create huge transitional problems okay so I will admit that that clip didn't bother me as much as the clips with you know Bill Gates and Leon Cooperman with that being said whenever I hear a billionaire talk about politics it just it frustrates me because I don't care about billionaires and elites like if you want to know how we should construct public policy we shouldn't be talking to rich people who don't need government to sustain themselves we should be talking to normal people who the government is supposed to serve who actually pay taxes mind you and who should have the largest say in the direction of the country but nonetheless you know in mainstream media rather than actually focusing in on what normal people want we see them bring on billionaires like Mark Cuban to pontificate about things that won't affect them and that they usually don't know anything about so he says capitalism is going to win there's no question about it but the thing about capitalism potentially winning out over socialism is that capitalism is a virus that will one day grow so big that it will consume itself and inevitably devour the entire political system which it exists in and bring down the planet with it so for the sake of humanity we better hope that capitalism doesn't win because capitalism is going to kill us all if it does in fact win now I know that for people like Mark Cuban of course you don't want to undo capitalism because this is the system that made you a billionaire so I mean I wouldn't want to undo socialism if that system helped me so I get it it's self-interest right but for the sake of humanity's survival we better hope that capitalism does not win and you know I think that he's wrong in actuality because when you look at public opinion polls seven out of 10 millennials favor socialism and they would vote to elect a socialist so the future generation they know that capitalism is a failure capitalism is a deadly system it's just a matter of will we be able to assume power in time before it kills us all that's really the true question it's a race against time he also says I'm never against open discourse that's what makes this company country great now I love that Freudian slip there because that's the same exact thing that Donnie Dorch said when he was talking about how you know Bernie Sanders is not what is good for this company country excuse me right because when you elect someone like Bernie Sanders you know that that's going to be bad for the bottom line because he's going to make you pay your fair share he just put out a brilliant tweet about Netflix he said that 899 fee that you paid in Netflix monthly is more than they've paid in taxes all year so what Bernie Sanders is going to do is make all of these tax dodgers finally pay what they haven't been paying so you know that's really important but that's what people who are elites don't like because they've been able to hire enough lawyers to where they don't have to pay any taxes they can get away with paying zero dollars Amazon paid zero dollars in taxes after they made billions in profits this is a trillion dollar company so the fact that they are paying effectively zero dollars in taxes should outrage everyone so what Bernie Sanders is doing is he's going to change that and they know they don't like that now Mark Cuban says socialism just doesn't work okay that's not a very persuasive argument and furthermore it depends on what type of socialism we're talking about progressives in the U.S. oftentimes point to social democratic countries in Scandinavia those are working really well when it comes to Latin American countries oftentimes when they elect a socialist government we overthrow that government with the CIA so we haven't even really tested democratic socialism anywhere in the world what we're really talking about is democratizing the workplace we're talking about democratizing society we're talking about hyper democratization so it's not necessarily so much about big government so much as it is about empowering people right so I mean socialism to say that it doesn't work that doesn't really mean anything it has no value in saying it so he then moved on to Medicare for All to demonstrate why socialism won't work and he proclaims health care to be a right but then proceeds to argue against Medicare for All and why we can't have health care be a right in actuality now when they refer to her Medicare for All bill meaning Elizabeth Warren meaning Bernie Sanders Medicare for All bill since he's the only candidate who actually supports Medicare for All the reason why he's against it is because he thinks it's not politically feasible now he argues that the head tax isn't the best way to fund it knows no disagreement from me there however to say that it's not politically feasible that doesn't mean anything there's a lot of things that we previously thought were not politically feasible right the new deal was not politically feasible the voting rights act passing social security these are all things that we thought were not politically feasible marriage equality women securing the right to vote freeing the slaves even our entire history is pretty radical right as Americans we've been always pushing the envelope and we haven't really gotten any big structural reform or constitutional amendments in this generation so now I think we're on the cusp of that people are finally waking up and realizing that we need that change so to say that it's not politically feasible that doesn't really mean anything and it's an ahistorical take because you're not taking into account the times that Americans have done things that were once thought to be politically infeasible he also talks about how Medicare for All according to him will take a huge step back in terms of benefits and he adds quote you're going to have a lot of people that are very upset that Medicare for All doesn't provide the quality of care that they're used to meaning union members and that's going to create huge transitional problems so this is an outright lie Medicare for All for I think most Americans will offer the best care that they have ever had to get the level and quality of care that Medicare for All will offer like if you were to opt for a private plan that covers that much you'd be paying like more than a thousand dollars per month for one person I'd imagine because it covers everything dental vision hearing aids for seniors it is comprehensive universal and it's free at the point of service so the union members who enjoy the private insurance that they have currently first of all I can assure you that it's going to be better than almost every single plan that unions are offering that's based in you know the private market and second of all if it's expanded to everyone isn't that better I mean like I just don't understand how people can say healthcare is a right but then say I don't support Medicare for All I still think that it should be a commodity like shoes and video games like that's contradictory you cannot say healthcare is a human right but then go on to say I think we should deny this human right to people unless they can afford it because it's not politically feasible fuck off like Democrats say this too they have co-opted the language that we use to talk about Medicare for All healthcare is a right even Tom Perez says it the DNC chair if you ask him what he thinks about Medicare for All doesn't support it all Democrats say healthcare is a right do they actually believe it's a right no because something that is a right cannot be taken away from you and the fact that they say it's a right but believe that you have to have money to you know benefit from that right it shows that they're full of shit right they're about paying lip service to the single payer movement which isn't going away anytime soon mind you so you know they don't have a choice either they acquiesce or we're gonna take them out and we're gonna defeat them and we will get people in power who actually will push for Medicare for All now later on during that interview the proportional clip that I didn't show you he talked about the wealth tax and now he's not necessarily against the wealth tax per se it just kind of matters how it's implemented now he was incredibly condescending and it was such a short portion that I didn't think it was worth playing the clip but basically to summarize what he was saying and I'll link to the full thing down below if you want to watch it was that you know people who support the wealth tax overall it seems like they're a little bit naive because they don't actually have billions of dollars you know in cash on hand and you know the wealth tax a plan like Elizabeth Warren's doesn't actually take into account liquidity given that you know the amount that he'd owe Mark Cuban himself based on his wealth actually exceeds the amount of cash he has on hand so in order to you know fulfill what's required under Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax he'd have to sell off portions of his worth in order to pay that wealth tax and so the way that he talks about proponents of the wealth tax is that they're just naive and they don't really understand the wealth tax right they don't realize that people like him are going to have to literally sell off their wealth in order to comply with the wealth tax but that's the whole point the point is you have to sell off your wealth in order to pay the wealth tax until you lose so much wealth that the wealth tax no longer applies to you that's the whole point because in a capitalist system wealth equals power we can't have people having a billion dollars in net worth because that destabilizes the system so the fact that it doesn't take into account liquidity does not matter sell off your assets to pay for the wealth tax and eventually you will have your wealth reduced to the point where you won't have to worry about the wealth tax that's the point billionaires shouldn't exist period end of story and to that he also said that people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are becoming incredibly Trumpian by saying statements like that look I am so sick and tired of hearing from billionaires they all need to understand that at a time when there is wealth and income inequality they need to read the room and shut the fuck up because they're you know talking down in a condescending way to peasants on national television every single day it's not helping their cause it's only making people want to eat the rich even more they're getting more hungry so I mean I'll leave that there I'm not sure what else to say about this Mark Cuban like every other billionaire is incredibly out of touch and yes we need to take the wealth that he stole from America because that much wealth I mean I don't know how much he's well he's worth he's over a billion but no one person should have it sorry if you want to live in a society you can't have that much wealth while people are starving that's not the way that things should operate and just because they are that way now doesn't mean that they should be that way so kindly shut the fuck up about politics and the wealth tax go away Mark Cuban I think that the American people are cynical about American politics and rightfully so because we've been betrayed time and again right there's always politicians that run on populism they you know are idealistic but then they get elected and they don't do anything they become complicit and get co-opted by the establishment and they sell out and then we never get the change that they promised there's dozens of examples you know Barack Obama of course is the most obvious example in the last couple of decades but you know we see this when it comes to Senate candidates Tammy Duckworth ran as a progressive sold out within the first year and now she's one of the worst centrist Democrats we see this you know when it comes to the House of Representatives people say one thing and then they do another and that's incredibly frustrating and I think that it just turns a lot of people off to politics in general which is why people just kind of tune out and they stop voting but what AOC said in an interview with Chris Hayes it shed light on why this happens it's because DC is a pressure cooker and you know as soon as you get elected there are tons of different voices and special interests who are exerting a lot of pressure on you to conform they're trying to get you to sign on to their pro-corporate legislation and there's really you know a lack of time when you're a member of Congress and on top of that there's a lack of information so what a lot of politicians end up doing is they end up relying on lobbyists they become dependent on lobbyists not just in terms of their campaign contributions but in terms of the services that they provide in terms of you know getting statistical data about policies and whatnot so this is what happens when you get elected right this is why so many people sell out and AOC explained this absolutely beautifully in an interview with Chris Hayes on MSNBC I feel like you've been very honest about this about the pressure to conform that you show up in Congress and there's just pressure to conform what does that pressure feel like how does it manifest itself what do you mean by that well that pressure is like a vice and there are so many different mechanisms in Congress that create that pressure one for example is the fact that any bill in legislation that is being voted on is not really debuted to members until about 48 hours before the vote and so sometimes these bills they go through markup they go through individual committees and we all sit on different committees so there's no way that we can all be at every markup at the same time but they move through markup but we often don't know if a vote is coming until it's according to House rules 48 hours ahead of time which is an improvement upon Paul Ryan's Congress in which it was 24 hours ahead of time and so we're talking about sometimes pieces of legislation that are thousands of pages long and then you say wait wait this is a really big problem that's a really big problem and they say well are you on our side or not and there's all this lobbyist authored provisions that are slipped inside sometimes we're able to catch them and take them out we did that quite a few times in appropriations where we found a couple fossil fuel amendments but there's a real intense pressure to conform yes do you feel like that intense pressure to conform there's also how do you balance like I'm entering this institution that I ran against in some ways that I viewed as corrupt from the outside now I'm inside it and I don't want to sell out and I don't want the I don't want to be sanded down to conform but also I want to learn how the place works absolutely and those seem to me like those can be impulses that are in tension with each other do you feel that way I think well they are naturally in tension but that's where kind of just an individual's personality comes through so if you just think that a person's politics defines who they are and you see every person that is on the other side of you as it as almost a personal enemy that creates a huge amount of problems for you but when you see the result of our political process on the things that come out of our congress as the natural result of pressures on our system then you can treat the individuals inside the that system as human but also it also almost I don't like using the word civility in politics because I I think it's a term to police how people talk but you're going to get dragged on Twitter now yeah exactly but I do think that there is an element where if I respect you you know like people know that that my political positions when I walk in there and what's great is that they know exactly how I feel and who I am and so they know not to come to me with certain things and they also probably save you some conversations it saves me a ton of time it's a ton of time but they also you know they also are willing to reach out to me on unusual things but they feel like would fit in the consistency of my values so I mean that pretty much explains why so many people sell out when they get elected because you are under immense pressure to conform and it is quite literally easier to just acquiesce to the status quo and what lobbyists want because you're you know overwhelmed when you're a member of Congress and that's sad right not only do you have to work on legislating and crafting public policy but most people in DC spend hours every single day on the phone fundraising constantly now people like AOC don't have to do that because they rely on small grassroots donations but most people in Congress they don't so they have to dedicate so much time and you know they spread themselves so thin that it's easier to just say you know what fuck it I'll support this bill that these lobbyists want me to support because I don't have the time to dive in so they're bad people but it's also due to them being you know lazy and also under a lot of pressure so I think that she really does a good job at explaining from a human standpoint why people sell out it's because that's the easy thing to do now she says the pressure is like a vice and there are so many mechanisms in Congress that create that pressure that's exactly it the system isn't designed you know to cater to the needs of you and I we don't have lobbyists there's no lobbyist from the pro medicare for all lobby there's only lobbyists from you know special interests and if you do have organizations and unions that are lobbying members of Congress they aren't going to be able to spend as much money lobbying as the special interests which is why you know you see these pro fossil fuel amendments being slipped into appropriations bills that often get voted on and passed and probably a lot of people in Congress don't even know what they just voted for because you're given a bill 24 to 48 hours before you have to vote on it and it's a thousand pages and you have to try to decide whether or not to support it and before you can even really decide for yourself if it's a good bill for the American people you have lobbyists and special interests in your ear trying to convince you to go one way or the other I mean the system isn't designed for good public policy making this is why a Princeton University study showed that policy outcomes usually reflect what elites want and not what normal Americans want we have a statistically insignificant impact on policy outcomes elites actually do influence how policies are crafted and the outcome of policies and that's a problem money in politics isn't just the only issue it's the structure of Congress it's the way that DC operates it really is a swamp for lack of a better word but people who claim they want to drain the swamp don't because again there's a lot of work to be done so you have to you know you have to delegate you have to allow your staff to handle a lot of it and you have to have you know input from different organizations on particular bills oftentimes those are influences that are bad it's just it's a clusterfuck right how else do you describe that DC is a mess and this is why I would never want to be a member of Congress because even if you have the intent to do good by the American people think about how difficult it is the amount of pressure that you are under and the stress not to mention the attacks that you get from you know your opponents like Fox News AOC is under constant attack by them as a communist or socialist so it's just it's not a good environment for crafting good public policy that's just the way that it is so we need to change the system we need big structural change and that's not going to happen by electing you know some type of wonky technocrat like Elizabeth Warren we need to redesign the system from the ground up and we do that with a movement who demands change because this much lobbyists that's not going to be conducive to a democratic country that reflects what the people want you know that's that's not going to be what happens it's going to devolve into oligarchy so you know yeah I'm really glad that AOC shed light on this because I think this is this is really important I wish that more members of Congress would speak out about this very issue there so that way there would actually be a little bit of urgency and just talk of possibly reforming the way that DC operates so we've been watching the impeachment proceedings play out now for multiple days and I'll admit this is absolutely exhausting albeit necessary because I don't want to live in a two-tier justice system like I believe that there really is no justice in the United States and we do effectively live in a two-tier justice system already where the rich get away with committing crimes and poor people get locked up for doing those same types of crimes that rich people get away with so I think that we need to hold everyone to the same standard and we can't give people a pass because it's politically expedient so even if I would much rather be watching people debate Medicare for all on the Senate floor this is necessary this is something that we have to do although I do understand the concerns of lefties who feel as if this is going to be a distraction with regard to the media and Democrats will just use this as an excuse to not focus on policy substance I get it right because Democrats by and large are incompetent but part of the reason why I really support impeachment is because one of my main criticisms of Democrats is that they are too weak in the face of Republican opposition and when they're finally like fighting for the first time in what seems to be forever it makes no sense for us to say actually don't fight now when you're finally fighting actually don't forget everything I told you it doesn't make sense right and also all the concerns that we were worried about or that some people were worried about with regard to this possibly being a distraction I don't really think that that's played out so AOC talked about this a little bit in an interview with Chris Hayes on MSNBC and she did a brilliant job at really debunking all of these myths about impeachment and she explained why this is absolutely crucial if we want to live in you know a country where we respect the Constitution and the rule of law like we don't have a choice we have to hold elites accountable and also the fears that everyone had about this being a distraction that really isn't bearing out in reality so this is what she had to say you're someone who I think you came to Congress with a very strong vision and agenda you were clear about that when you ran your primary that you won and I think there's an interesting sort of debate about this impeachment and about the president that has to do with you know is this the best use of legislative time there you've seen some Republicans saying it's not as someone who has an agenda that you want to pass right that you want to see happen how do you view impeachment in that context well I'm I'm not very concerned about it because we're able to legislate while this is happening just yesterday I introduced our first piece of Green New Deal legislation which was around public housing and decarbonizing our entire public housing stock in the United States and so it's not coming at the cost of legislating some may say that mass media may cover our proposals a little bit less but they don't do a great job of that in the first place so it's no I love you I love you but but I don't think I'm going to get like a decarbonization like 8 p.m. time slot so it's okay I think I think we're legislating we're working for people and we're holding the president accountable and it's all possible and if we don't hold this accountable then we really erode rule of law in the United States of America and really what makes America different when people say I want to do business here I want to I want to write books here I want to take my family here I want to raise and be around American ideals a lot of it has to do with the reliability that people the right people will be held to account that there are consequences for doing wrong for hurting people and also that this is a fair country where everyone is treated equally but isn't that as often honored in the breach as not I mean one of the things that I think helps him is there's so much cynicism about that exact thing well that's exactly right isn't it because there is a lot of corruption in our society big money and big pharma and big oil and big gas have taken over our entire political system and there are a lot of systemic threats but that doesn't mean that just because some things are broken you throw out our entire country and set it on fire and and at its core the most sacred document in our society is the Constitution of the United States everything else is very easily amenable but this is not and once we erode the general respect for the Constitution then we essentially erode respect for the United States of America and that's what this President has done so I mean everything she said there is incredibly important they're still getting things done just yesterday she said I introduced our first piece of Green New Deal legislation which was around public housing and decarbonizing our entire public housing stock in the United States yeah we can walk and chew gum at the same time I never really understood this argument and I didn't find it persuasive that impeachment would take up so much time that it would be a distraction first of all Donald Trump is president and Republicans still control the Senate so it's not like we're going to pass very many policies anyway not really gonna happen so to say that this is going to distract from talking about policy not really because the same thing is going to happen that has always been the case I mean progressives will continue to be policy driven and corporate Democrats will sit on their asses and do nothing that's not going to change because of impeachment so she makes a really great point about that she also says some say mass media will cover our proposals a little bit less but they don't do a great job with that in the first place exactly the media is never going to all of a sudden focus on policy unless there is any type of sensationalist value that they're able to extract from it right so they're not going to talk about Medicare for all debates on the House floor unless there's drama there's an exchange that gets a little bit too heated between people in Congress debating it they focus on sensationalism because sensationalism is what yields ratings and ratings is what yields profits because that attracts advertisers so it's not going to be like oh well all of a sudden they're going to start doing a bad job they're already doing a bad job right so to say they're just going to be hyper focused on impeachment in the same way that they were focused on Russia game look the media is going to focus on what they believe will get them ratings and nine times out of ten that's not what they should be talking about the substance always gets forgotten about and swept under the rug in favor of you know horse race politics and political drama that's the way that mainstream media operates so that's not going to change because of impeachment and I don't find that argument persuasive as well now finally what I think is the most persuasive argument that she makes in defense of impeachment and in defense of the impeachment proceedings that we've been seeing is this is about the principle why don't people understand that if we don't hold this accountable then we really erode rule of law in the United States of America just because things are broken doesn't mean you throw out our entire country and set it on fire right just because we let elites in the past get away with committing crimes just because Donald Trump may get away with committing other crimes doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try to hold him accountable for this now I do absolutely sympathize with people who believe that we should broaden the scope of the impeachment inquiry it should be focused on the emoluments clause the hush money payments and the general corruption like of course we should focus on all of that so I don't agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi is proceeding with this however that doesn't necessarily mean that I don't think that the Ukraine call in and of itself is an impeachable offense because of course this is an abuse of power you can't do this if Obama did this he would have been impeached within two days because Republicans do not fuck around and they never take time to play nine-dimensional chess and focus on you know whether or not this will affect their chances they just act impulsively and even though sometimes that hurts them overall they've been more effective at winning elections and getting the message out there because they never backed down so we need to make sure that we reinforce the message that Democrats have got to be strong and we actually need to applaud them when they finally listen to us and they try to hold Trump accountable I mean we've been pushing Nancy Pelosi for this impeachment inquiry for more than a year and only now she's finally doing it and you know she could broaden the scope of it but don't tell them to back away when they're finally trying to exert a little bit of pressure on Republicans and Donald Trump because we want them to fight Democratic Party weakness before is what led to their defeat so being strong in the face of Republican Party criticism I think that that does matter so you know all of these fears that I think lefties had some of which are legitimate some of which I don't agree with I think that it is important that we address them although you know what AOC said here I think it absolutely makes sense none of them are persuasive enough to where people on the left should be discouraging this impeachment process from taking place I mean it's already basically proving that Donald Trump did in fact abuse power so he should be impeached for that when presidents break the law we should hold their feet to the fire this should be something that isn't controversial you know the right is united in fighting against impeachment so the left overall should be united in pressing for impeachment so yeah I just I don't understand why some people are against impeachment on the left I think there are legitimate concerns I think you can argue about the way that impeachment is being conducted I think Kyle Kalinsky makes a pretty solid argument as to why Trump should be impeached for a different reason as opposed to this Ukrainian call but with that being said to just be against impeachment overall it doesn't make sense to me as lefties we should always push for justice and that means we fight against the two-tier justice system that we live in and we make sure that elites like Donald Trump don't get away with crimes that they commit brazenly so well believe it or not the November Democratic Party primary debate is already here and this time it will feature 10 candidates as opposed to 12 thank god and being excluded this time are Julian Castro and Beto O'Rourke who of course has dropped out now this debate will feature Joe Biden Corey Booker Pete Buttigieg Chelsea Gabbard Kamala Harris Amy Klobuchar Bernie Sanders Tom Steyer Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang so I want to kind of give you my thoughts about this debate and what to look for and really what I would like to see now first because all I care about is seeing Bernie Sanders emerge victorious from this debate I'm going to talk about him first because I want him to absolutely dominate this debate and the way that he does that is by taking off the gloves now he's gotten increasingly more aggressive throughout the course of the primary but I need him to ramp everything he set up that's negative by about 150 like he's got to take the gloves off and what I want Bernie Sanders to focus on is Pete Buttigieg Pete Buttigieg is someone who I think is going to have to endure a lot of attacks at this debate and as a result his polling could go down because he is kind of viewed as a frontrunner not necessarily the frontrunner but one of four frontrunners so he is going to have to brace himself but Bernie Sanders has got to be the main aggressor here he's got to make sure that he hits that message home that Pete Buttigieg is a fraud call out the corruption call out his pivot away from Medicare for all once he took contributions from the health insurance industry call him out for the fraud that he is Joe Biden I think that Bernie Sanders has got to get you know a few good shots in at Joe Biden but you don't necessarily have to focus all of your attention on Joe Biden because I think it's safe to say that he lost his lead in the early primary states and even though nationally he's still at number one you know if he can't win those early primary states I think it's safe to say that he's not going to do very well now he's still pulling very well in South Carolina so you can't just like take the focus away from Joe Biden that being said I think that Bernie Sanders if I'm him I would make Pete Buttigieg my main focus so Bernie Sanders can win simply by being aggressive I think that what we've seen throughout the course of this primary is that candidates who have been aggressive at these debates have been rewarded right when Kamala Harris went after Joe Biden she saw a big boost in the polls before she face planted and was taken out by Tulsi Gabbard Pete Buttigieg was incredibly aggressive towards Elizabeth Warren at that last debate and the media rewarded him for it now let's be honest here the media is not going to reward Bernie Sanders for being aggressive they're not going to reward candidates for being aggressive if that aggression is directed at the candidates that you know they like so for example when Julian Castro went after Joe Biden maybe he went a little bit too far in questioning whether or not Biden's mental faculties were there when people who are reasonable are asking that so I'm not under this delusion that Bernie Sanders will be rewarded by the media I think that if he were to get pretty aggressive you know they would come after him but voters are going to see that as strength voters are going to hopefully take away what Bernie Sanders says which is the truth about Pete Buttigieg that he's a fraud and that would hopefully give him a boost Pete Buttigieg cannot win this nomination if he does Trump gets a second term so everyone who's in this debate needs to focus on Pete Buttigieg anyone who isn't they're not serious now I don't necessarily know that this surge is going to have longevity maybe he face plants a month later we don't know right there's been kind of one candidate in the spotlight throughout the course of this primary each month and they face planted right the main three candidates have been Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden so maybe you know Pete Buttigieg's front-runner status will be short-lived although regardless he's surging now you've got to attack him if I'm Elizabeth Warren this is kind of a difficult predicament because she kind of lost her front-runner status after that last debate when she kind of entered that debate as the front-runner and as a result everyone kind of directed their anger towards her and tried to bring her down we saw Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg kind of direct their aim at her and you know as a result the media took that as her not really being ready to defend her front-runner status and she kind of lost it so on top of that she's pissing off progressives left and right her response to the Bolivian coup her backtrack on Medicare for all like she's proving that she's not a good candidate so if I'm Elizabeth Warren I just survive this debate right she doesn't have to do too much because she's in a relatively solid spot I would just join Bernie Sanders in the event Bernie Sanders attacks Pete Buttigieg and just back him up be his wingman in this debate and I think that there's not much room for Elizabeth Warren to grow by attacking anyone because she's already you know in a pretty solid position at the top in early primary states so attacking people like Pete Buttigieg I think that that would be wise for Elizabeth Warren to do although I will say that she doesn't necessarily have to be as aggressive as Bernie Sanders because he needs to do more to you know move up in polling now when it comes to Joe Biden Joe Biden he has to have a good performance I don't think he will have a good performance he's hanging on for dear life he lost his lead in early primary states basically his only hope is that he'll win South Carolina and then get momentum after South Carolina to kind of propel him throughout the course of the rest of the primary now South Carolina it is a delegate rich status as far as I know I believe so you know that's not necessarily a bad strategy but he cannot slip any further otherwise I mean there's no point in him even staying in to Iowa so he just has to survive and I don't necessarily believe that he's going to be the target since he's no longer really viewed as the front runner he may be pulling at first nationally but I mean what really matters is your status in early primary states he just has to survive and if he really targets someone like Pete Buttigieg which I don't think he will since that is an ideological ally to him you know that could help him if he's a little bit aggressive that could help him but I think that the most likely scenario is he's just going to fall asleep throughout the course of this debate and you know we'll kind of forget that he's there unless the media props him up and makes him you know the center of attention which I think that Pete Buttigieg will kind of be for this debate so moving on Tom Steyer is someone who really shouldn't participate again I am against billionaires being able to buy their way into these debates so he should not be taken seriously I don't think he was last time but that should be the same case now and whenever he talks he should be made fun of people should really dismiss him and yeah he shouldn't be here so I don't want him to win and I don't really think he can win because he's a billionaire so when he preaches you know being anti-establishment and when he speaks out against corruption you're a billionaire you have no street cred and what you're saying it's not landing with the American people now when it comes to Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard I'm gonna lump these two in together because these are people who have large online followings and basically what they need to do is one of two things if not both one they need to each have at least one good moment and they need this to secure a spot in the next debate right in hopes that maybe they can you know have a spark that catches fire and they get a little bit of a boost like Pete Buttigieg or Kamala Harris God but they need one moment and it can't just be a solid moment like they need to shine it needs to be a moment that we're all talking about on top of that we're at a state in the race where people are going to start bowing out probably relatively soon so they're pulling lower so they need to attach themselves to a bigger candidate right someone who they may back in the event they lose someone they may endorse in the event they drop out whether that's Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden it seems like Andrew Yang is kind of gravitating towards Joe Biden he should attach himself to Biden Tulsi Gabbard she's just all over the map ideologically speaking so I don't know who she'd attach herself to but attach themselves to a bigger candidate running for purposes of this debate like I'm not saying endorse them at this debate what I'm saying is strategically speaking if you kind of act as the wingman or wingwoman to another candidate that can kind of give you a little bit of a boost if you kind of ride their coattails in order to at least get you to that next debate stage that's that's really the goal right it's survival here when it comes to Andrew Yang I believe he's already qualified for the December debate so he's not going to have as you know big of a task here but Tulsi Gabbard definitely needs to have at least one good moment and you know she has performed fairly well at the debates before excluding the last debate but you know I don't necessarily think that this is out of the question she just needs to try to attack someone and hope that it lands when it comes to Cory Booker I think that he needs to probably do the same thing now I say that about the anti-establishment candidates but really my advice for the other you know one to five percenters like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris is largely the same they need to also start aligning with the bigger candidate whether that is Elizabeth Warren whether that is Bernie Sanders which I doubt or Joe Biden they've got to make sure that they kind of align with someone else because look their days are short-lived they're not doing great right so they need to make sure that they one have at least one good moment and two they start really aligning with someone else at this debate to try to have a good moment right everyone is trying to suck up as much air as they possibly can in the room at this debate and that's no different for them so basically my advice for them is the same as the anti-establishment candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang the one difference is that I will say they are probably going to have a more difficult time because there's not very much momentum for Kamala Harris or Cory Booker I think there's more momentum online and more enthusiasm for her than there is for Cory Booker I mean there's just no they're there for him so she's gonna have an easier time than her than him but Cory Booker really just he's hanging on by a thread and when it comes to Amy Klobuchar last and least you know I don't know what to really expect from her the only way she's able to she's going to be able to win this debate is if the media and the hosts the moderators do what they did last time and basically just ask her a hundred different questions and prop her up as if she's a legitimate contender that's what they did for her and Buttigieg and unfortunately for her Buttigieg is the one who ended up getting the most out of that but she is not going to do well unless the moderators prop her up and she doesn't necessarily have to do very well I can't imagine she has that much funds left although she did get a boost in fundraising after that last debate however you know I just I can't really see her sticking around for much longer she's probably hoping that she's going to be the next centrist to surge after Biden but I mean Buttigieg kind of filled that spot but in the event he goes down and Biden remains at the top she's kind of hoping to get the boost I don't like I don't know what to expect from her because she's incredibly boring and milk toast so I'm not expecting much from Amy Klobuchar with that being said of course she needs to have a good performance but I don't necessarily think that that will happen unless it is because she is propped up by the moderators so with that being said what I really really really want to see more so than anything is Bernie Sanders be aggressive now I'll take anything I'll take what I can get he needs a performance that is so good that you really can't deny that he won that debate and I think that his debate performances up until this point have been absolutely stellar the problem is you know he's not really doing much for himself he's not moving the needle in terms of polling now yes he has four million individual donations he has more than a million people on the ground fighting for him but in that national spotlight you've got to demonstrate to people that you are a leader who is strong who's assertive who is capable of taking on Donald Trump we all know that Bernie Sanders has it in him but he needs to just get this you know idea out of his head that you can't be negative and that negativity is bad know you're fighting for the American people this is a fight for you know the planet so it's incumbent on you to prove why you're the real deal and why people like Pete Buttigieg are frauds why his ideological position is nonexistent and he's influenced by the money he's taking like Bernie's got to take the gloves off that's all I can say I've been saying this after every single debate and if he doesn't start doing that then I don't think he's going to improve in the polls so he has to call them out I have no doubt in my mind that whenever he talks he's going to make excellent points but for the love of God Bernie take the fucking gloves off and hit them hard that's the only way you're going to really show to people that you're serious here because you're going to this debate with a lot of loyal supporters who aren't going to abandon you so we have to broaden though that core appeal and you do this by being assertive and aggressive and by also really making the case about electability and driving it home driving home the point that an establishment Democrat will lose to Donald Trump as Hillary Clinton did Bernie Sanders needs to explain how he's the only progressive on the stage who will excite the base he's got to do this I mean he has to win this debate he's not going to be out of it like I don't want to imply that that's the case but we need a good performance because we need a surge from Bernie Sanders he got a little bit of a surge but now we need to propel him into first place because we're coming down to the nitty gritty the Iowa caucus is in February so he's got a lot of ground to make up if he wants to win and you do that by having really solid performances at these debates and you've got to take the gloves off in order to win because playing nice isn't going to work in 2019 Donald Trump is president so you've got to be aggressive you've got to be assertive and you've got to call people out like people to judge for the frauds that they are so that's kind of what I am expecting that's what I think we should look out for and yeah either way this is going to be pretty exciting for the first half and then that last hour is going to be incredibly draining and we're all going to hope that it's over so yeah I don't have anything else to say we'll just watch them I'll follow this up with my debate analysis and debate breakdown shortly after it airs well we knocked out another debate and I honestly don't know if the debates are in fact becoming progressively worse objectively speaking or if I personally am just getting increasingly frustrated and disenchanted with the process itself and the reason why I say that is because like I don't know what the average non-politically savvy consumer of news media would be able to take away from these debates that would help them make a more informed decision going into 2020 because there's just little to no substance there's not enough time for the candidates to really dive deep into these issues and actually debate issues like healthcare and foreign policy and debate solutions with regard to climate change I mean there's just none of that and the moderation is just incredibly incompetent at all of these debates this one was certainly no different some of the questions that they asked were absolutely insane like why waste your time asking Andrew Yang what he'd say to Vladimir Putin in his first call as president who cares why ask Elizabeth Warren about a national service program why ask Bernie Sanders about whether or not it's appropriate for his crowds to be chanting lock him up about Donald Trump who cares how does that make me make a more informed decision while voting now when it comes to Bernie Sanders we know that they deliberately try to tie Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump and prime people to believe that he's Trumpian because MSNBC and the Washington Post both moderators here they hate Bernie Sanders in 2016 Washington Post ran 16 negative stories about Bernie Sanders within 24 hours so we know that their agenda is crystal clear but getting to the substance here there was just not much to be found and I find that incredibly frustrating because we need to really dive deep into these issues you know go through the details about healthcare and not just debate you know the centrist versus you know the progressive position actually allow Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to hash out their differences because these debates they kind of present this false image of Elizabeth Warren basically being you know the standard bearer for Medicare for all when that's not actually the case right we're asking a billionaire Tom Steyer a question about affordable housing I mean the entire process is laughable with that being said we're going to get into the specifics and who I think you know was the winner who lost I think that this like all debates is largely subjective I don't necessarily believe that there was any clear winner with that being said let's talk numbers first so when it comes to talk time Elizabeth Warren got the most time to speak with 13.4 minutes followed by Pete Buttigieg with 12.8 Joe Biden with 12.6 Bernie Sanders with 11.8 Corey Booker with 11.5 Kamala Harris with 11.5 Amy Kl